Nets continue to build via bad contracts

flyerhawk said:

If the Nets had their pick this year and their pick next year, I would completely agree with you.

But they don't. They just lost out on getting Fulz or Ball and next year the same thing may happen.

I generally agree with you that tanking can make sense but tanking only to give the pick to a rival makes no sense to me. All 3 contracts they took on expire within 3 seasons. If Russell develops into something quality they could trade that asset next year and start building the way you are talking about.

Click to expand...

tlance said:

and if they go that route, fine.

I just don't think that is what they are doing.

Brooklyn is an interesting market. They could be a free agent destination if they have two young players with superstar potential and cap space. The process doesn't have to be as longboard and drawn out as the 6ers process was.

But, IMO, they should be looking at 2016-2018 as sunk costs of the previous regime.

Click to expand...

tlance said:

and if they go that route, fine.

I just don't think that is what they are doing.

Brooklyn is an interesting market. They could be a free agent destination if they have two young players with superstar potential and cap space. The process doesn't have to be as longboard and drawn out as the 6ers process was.

But, IMO, they should be looking at 2016-2018 as sunk costs of the previous regime.

Click to expand...

wildturkey said:

That's exactly what they are doing. They lost their draft picks so they picked up the closest thing they can get to one in D'Angelo Russell. They're taking on bad contracts to gain other assets (the pick that became Jarrett Allen, Toronto's picks). The bad contracts they have come off the books at a time when they'll have more draft pick and cap flexability. Those contracts can potentially be flipped to a desperate team for a draft pick once they becoming expirings. And if those younger players like Russell or Crabbe get them flirting or into the playoffs in 2018 or 2019, they're a much more attractive destination than if they just continued to suck ass for 2 more years (which would put them at like 8 years of being a total afterthought).

You also keep mentioning the Sixers but that's an entirely different situation. Philly CHOSE to be bad. They had draft picks and dismantled their roster to maximize the chance of landing high lottery picks for multiple years. Brooklyn didn't choose this. They made a horrible trade and got stuck. You can't use the same methodology. The new regime recognizes that, are eating the sunk cost as best they can, and working with what they have.

Click to expand...

wildturkey said:

That's exactly what they are doing. They lost their draft picks so they picked up the closest thing they can get to one in D'Angelo Russell. They're taking on bad contracts to gain other assets (the pick that became Jarrett Allen, Toronto's picks). The bad contracts they have come off the books at a time when they'll have more draft pick and cap flexability. Those contracts can potentially be flipped to a desperate team for a draft pick once they becoming expirings. And if those younger players like Russell or Crabbe get them flirting or into the playoffs in 2018 or 2019, they're a much more attractive destination than if they just continued to suck ass for 2 more years (which would put them at like 8 years of being a total afterthought).

You also keep mentioning the Sixers but that's an entirely different situation. Philly CHOSE to be bad. They had draft picks and dismantled their roster to maximize the chance of landing high lottery picks for multiple years. Brooklyn didn't choose this. They made a horrible trade and got stuck. You can't use the same methodology. The new regime recognizes that, are eating the sunk cost as best they can, and working with what they have.

Click to expand...

tlance said:

That is why I disagree with you guys.

You can't win a championship in the NBA without a superstar player and other quality pieces around him. Russell is a decent asset with upside, but he will never be a franchise player.

If he and Crabbe and everyone else plays up to their max potential and they eventually sneak into the playoffs, where is the future upside? What are they building to? They might be in the market to sign second tier players and continue to get marginally better, but again. There is little to no future upside in doing that.

IMO, if you don't have a legit franchise player, you should be doing everything you can to get one. For most teams that means through the draft. Since the Nets don't have a pick in '18, it just means one more year of waiting. If they were making these moves in 2015 it would have made sense. Not now.

I know most don't agree, and that is fine. But, I would also be willing to bet that the Nets don't put together a contending caliber team in the next 10 years because they appear to be building toward a 40 win roster now.

Click to expand...

flyerhawk said:

So your plan would be tank next year, give Boston another top 5 picks, tank the year after that and hope you get a great draft pick out of that. If not, tank again. 6 years of terrible basketball and once shot at a lottery pick doesn't seem like a great plan.

I think you are looking at this too clinically and ignoring the finances of the game. You can't perpetually stink. And you can't have a plan that assumes you will be a 20 win team for 6-8 years. Even the Sixers would not have bought into that.

Click to expand...

tlance said:

You know what is worse than 6 years of terrible basketball?

An eternity of 35-45 win seasons. Good luck with that!

Click to expand...

flyerhawk said:

I doubt you would find any team that would sign up for 6 years of 20 win seasons on the HOPE of getting a transcendent player.

In most years, the difference between the 3rd pick and the 9th pick really isn't that much.

Click to expand...

tlance said:

I know most don't agree, and that is fine. But, I would also be willing to bet that the Nets don't put together a contending caliber team in the next 10 years because they appear to be building toward a 40 win roster now.

Click to expand...

tlance said:

Well, when you have already had 2 with a 3rd on the way, it changes things a bit.

I knew that the Nets/Celtics trade would cripple the Nets future when they made it, but because of this mindset, it could ruin them for 15-20 years.

Click to expand...

bksballer89 said:

That is a huge assumption. If you said next 5 years then I would agree with you but so many things can happen over a 10 year time period. Who saw the Warriors winning 2 titles and making 3 championships by the end of the 2017 season back in 2007?

Click to expand...

flyerhawk said:

Exactly right. The Warriors highest pick was #7. And yet they now have the best team in basketball. The Spurs haven't had a lottery pick in 20 years.

The Nets have hardly turned themselves into a contender. They are still likely to be a 30 win team this year and in the lottery. They just reduced the chance that they would be a 15 win team.

Click to expand...

flyerhawk said:

Wow I fundamentally disagree with you. Good teams didn't always tank to get good. In fact many of them did not. And if they did tank they tanked for a year, not 6.

Click to expand...

flyerhawk said:

Exactly right. The Warriors highest pick was #7. And yet they now have the best team in basketball. The Spurs haven't had a lottery pick in 20 years.

The Nets have hardly turned themselves into a contender. They are still likely to be a 30 win team this year and in the lottery. They just reduced the chance that they would be a 15 win team.

Click to expand...

tlance said:

The Nets have not tanked at all. They just suck.

Click to expand...

flyerhawk said:

They can't tank because they don't have the draft picks. That's the problem.

Click to expand...

Mebert said:

I liked taking on Mozgov and Carrols contracts, because they got either a 1st or a high potential player to do it. However the Crabbe move was a mistake. Especially the timing of it. Instead of dumping 1 bad contract for another, why not see how the Irving thing works out? They are one of only a few teams sitting on enough cap space to help facilitate a trade, and both sides of any Irving trade would be motivated to make it happen. I think they could have grabbed something of more value by waiting.

Overall I like what they are doing, they are following a similar path to the Jazz. Which was going real well before Hayward leaving.

Click to expand...

tlance said:

The Spurs had their franchise players, Robinson and Duncan already on the team. Both were #1 overall picks. They set the foundation the winning culture in SA.

The Warriors came out of nowhere because 3 players (Curry, Klay and Dray) all achieved success more than anyone thought possible. They are the exception, not the rule.

Yes, there are other ways to build championship teams, especially for those in destination cities. Brooklyn could be that in theory, but it is far more likely when you have a young star or 2 on the roster (like the Lakers).

Click to expand...