If Vince Carter wins a ring with the Grizzlies this year, where do you rank him?

[StephHamann]

Right now most people don't have Vince in their top 50 alltime, would a Ring this year with him as one of the top 3 players of the Grizzlies change your opionion?

[MP.Trey]

He is not a top 3 Grizzlies player. Gasol, Randolph and Conley are all way better than him. Tony Allen & Courtney Lee are probably better right now too, I guess you could make an argument.

Might move him up like a spot or two depending on how big a factor his play is in the championship, whether he hits a few clutch shots during the stretch or not, etc.

His re-transformation as a role player has gained him major props, but winning a ring as an aging role player really doesn't do too much to effect legacies, ask Gary Payton.

[StephHamann]

Assuming he plays like a top 3 player during the playoffs.

Right now he is not, but let's say he puts up 17/4/3 on good shooting % with clutch shots in the playoffs.

[Haymaker]

Fvck his legacy. He would retire very happy regardless of how people rank him. :D

[smoovegittar]

I usually rank on him in here... but he's a good player. :banghead:

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

VC has no way of moving up. Hes a role player at this point of his career a great role player but i dont give points for role player rings

its like when nikkas started ranking Kidd above Stockton b/c he won a ring as a role player gettin carried by Dirk:facepalm :facepalm
VC could be very important to the Grizz, and JKidd was important to the Mavs but we're talking alltime best of the best players. U dont start climbing in that 50-70 range (where VC is) or 30-40 for Kidd as a key role player:no:

[elementally morale]

The same as now. He had a pretty good and very very very entertaining peak but his prime didn't las long enough. As far as entertainment value is concerned probably top 20 and maybe top 15. As for his career I'm not sure he would make my top 100.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

The same as now. He had a pretty good and very very very entertaining peak but his prime didn't las long enough. As far as entertainment value is concerned probably top 20 and maybe top 15. As for his career I'm not sure he would make my top 100.
VC is easily top 100:biggums: :biggums:

[StephHamann]

VC is easily top 100:biggums: :biggums:

He has 23k career points (32 alltime)

and is a top 10 3-point shooter

also gold medalist and one of the most spectacular dunkers ever

:applause:

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Um.... how much of a bump did it help Mitch Richmond getting a ring with LA?

[necya]

cause when you win a championship as a sixth man, you magically become a better player ?
top 50 ? lol this site will always amaze me :facepalm

[elementally morale]

VC is easily top 100:biggums: :biggums:

On your list, he may be. Not on mine... he may just make it... but top 50... noy effin' way.

[MellowYellow]

Grizz aint winnin sht, so don't matter.

[Rake2204]

I'd say chalk this up as another reason why championship rings should have a limited effect on the judgment of a player's individual ability. It's all a sliding scale. If the Grizzlies won, Carter will likely have played a small part. When the Heat won, Wade played a very big part. When the Mavericks won, Nowitzki may have played an even greater part. When the Lakers won in the early 00's, Bryant may have been somewhere in between.

In short, as always, I think one's effect on a team is very important, but that effect may not always result in a championship. Sorry to bring Kobe Bryant into this discussion, but I feel he serves as a good example. Judging him by team championships is incomplete, in my opinion. For better or worse, I think it's also worth looking at his mid-2000's years. What are those Kwame Brown Lakers teams without him? Bryant's impact on those squads may tell us just as much about his abilities as what he was able to do when he had great supporting casts. I think the same goes for all players.

[Qwyjibo]

I'd say chalk this up as another reason why championship rings should have a limited effect on the judgment of a player's individual ability. It's all a sliding scale. If the Grizzlies won, Carter will likely have played a small part. When the Heat won, Wade played a very big part. When the Mavericks won, Nowitzki may have played an even greater part. When the Lakers won in the early 00's, Bryant may have been somewhere in between.

In short, as always, I think one's effect on a team is very important, but that effect may not always result in a championship. Sorry to bring Kobe Bryant into this discussion, but I feel he serves as a good example. Judging him by team championships is incomplete, in my opinion. For better or worse, I think it's also worth looking at his mid-2000's years. What are those Kwame Brown Lakers teams without him? Bryant's impact on those squads may tell us just as much about his abilities as what he was able to do when he had great supporting casts. I think the same goes for all players.
Take this logic out of here, please.

This is ISH where every ring is equal and all that matters is how many you have. Oh and "Finals winning percentage"... that's apparently incredibly important too because if you don't win in the Finals, your entire year is a failure.