Nets continue to build via bad contracts

[flyerhawk]

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.

Not sure they could have got anything notably better than Crabbe. A late 1st? That's possible I guess. I don't think that is a huge upgrade over Crabbe. And the Nets were able to dump a bad contract to get Crabbe.

Crabbe does have upside. Clearly the Nets think very highly of him given the contract they offered last year and the fact that they traded for him this year. He is a very good perimeter shooter. He could turn into something.

 

[flyerhawk]

Spurs did not really plan a tank, they had a playoff caliber team that fell apart when Robinson went down for the year. Even then they had very small odds of getting the one pick. Going full tank is just as risky, you are banking on a lot of variables outside of your control. You need to beat the odds in the lottery, and hope it is not an Anthony Bennet draft. Then you have to wait for them to develop.

Exactly. Or you have to go full Hinkie and plan to have multiple top 5 picks. That's a lot of pain and GMs rarely survive it.

 

[Mebert]

Trading Nicholson for Crabbe essentially makes Crabbe a roughly $12M/year player.
That's not terrible at all.

Not sure they could have got anything notably better than Crabbe. A late 1st? That's possible I guess. I don't think that is a huge upgrade over Crabbe. And the Nets were able to dump a bad contract to get Crabbe.

Crabbe does have upside. Clearly the Nets think very highly of him given the contract they offered last year and the fact that they traded for him this year. He is a very good perimeter shooter. He could turn into something.

That trade takes the cap space from 16 million to 4. 12 a year for Crabbe is not worth it in that case. That cap space could have net them something real useful if they could get involved in a Melo or Irving trade. That Crabbe trade would have always been there, why not wait and see what you can pull off.

Or better yet Blazers had already been part of the rumor as a helper in the Anthony deal, why not try to get in as a 4th team, You still take on Crabbes contract, but for helping facilitate the trade I think you can get a few other pieces as well.

Trading is no sure thing, it just felt like a premature trade when more value was potentially out there

 

[trojanfan12]

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?

If I understand what @wildturkey and @flyerhawk are saying correctly, you answered your own question.

If Crabbe and Russell are good enough to get the Nets to where they are at least flirting with the playoffs, they become a more attractive FA destination.

To be attractive to FA's (and fans for that matter) teams have to be able to sell winning or hope. For about 6 or 7 years, the Nets haven't been able to sell either. It looks like they are trying to get to where they can at least sell hope.

To me, it looks similar to what the Lakers have been/are doing except the Nets are starting out with even less going for them than the Lakers had after the Dwight/Nash trade blew up in their face.

 

[DJ Fieri]

Good move.

 

[flyerhawk]

To me, it looks similar to what the Lakers are doing except the Nets are starting out with even less going for them than the Lakers had after the Dwight/Nash trade blew up in their face.

Yup. The Lakers had their draft picks, while the Nets haven't.

 

[DJ Fieri]

They dumped a role player and added a player who can compete for a starting job next to Russell, unless they start Lin and Russell. The 2nd one may be the smarter move since Russell blossomed last season after being moved to SG.

 

[tlance]

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

That is my entire point.

They should have done this 3 years ago.

There is finally a faint light at the end of the tunnel because they will have their own pick in 2019.

And hey! Let's try to win a few games now. Emphasis on few.

Be patient! You can't get the last two years back by winning a few extra games this year.

 

[tlance]

Spurs did not really plan a tank, they had a playoff caliber team that fell apart when Robinson went down for the year. Even then they had very small odds of getting the one pick. Going full tank is just as risky, you are banking on a lot of variables outside of your control. You need to beat the odds in the lottery, and hope it is not an Anthony Bennet draft. Then you have to wait for them to develop.

Never said the Spurs tanked. The point is that are what they are today because of those 2 picks 20 and 30 years ago.

As for Bennett? That was a horrendous pick that only Dan Gilbert would make. IT was a shocker when he made it and it is in the books as the worst number one pick of all time. Bennett was thought to be going in the 5-8 range.

 

[flyerhawk]

That is my entire point.

They should have done this 3 years ago.

There is finally a faint light at the end of the tunnel because they will have their own pick in 2019.

And hey! Let's try to win a few games now. Emphasis on few.

Be patient! You can't get the last two years back by winning a few extra games this year.

There is no question that the Billy King era screwed the Nets but good. So far it has cost them a #3 and #1 pick. Remains to be seen what they will lose next year.

Being terrible again and losing another top 3 pick doesn't get them anything. Planning to be terrible next year so you can be terrible the year after is a pretty terrible plan.

 

[tlance]

It's all about giving BOS the worst pick possible for me.

Same thing with LAL 2018 2-5 protected for BOS.
Doesn't matter to me how many games the Nets or Lakers win, just win enough to put those picks in the 6-10 range....

Sure.

But that serves the 6ers, not the Nets.

Unless they could turn all those players around and tank in 2019. They won't be able to.

The Nets shouldn't care what pick the Celtics get because they are very far out of their league now and for the next few years.

 

[tlance]

If I understand what @wildturkey and @flyerhawk are saying correctly, you answered your own question.

If Crabbe and Russell are good enough to get the Nets to where they are at least flirting with the playoffs, they become a more attractive FA destination.

To be attractive to FA's (and fans for that matter) teams have to be able to sell winning or hope. For about 6 or 7 years, the Nets haven't been able to sell either. It looks like they are trying to get to where they can at least sell hope.

To me, it looks similar to what the Lakers have been/are doing except the Nets are starting out with even less going for them than the Lakers had after the Dwight/Nash trade blew up in their face.

Cmon man. You don't really believe that do you? Russell and Crabbe attracting free agents?

That is nothing like the allure of Ball + Ingram + Magic + Hollywood.

 

[Mebert]

Never said the Spurs tanked. The point is that are what they are today because of those 2 picks 20 and 30 years ago.

As for Bennett? That was a horrendous pick that only Dan Gilbert would make. IT was a shocker when he made it and it is in the books as the worst number one pick of all time. Bennett was thought to be going in the 5-8 range.

Who else in that draft changes a franchise? Antetokuonmpo at 15 and Gobert at 27. Neither considered worthy of the top 10. My point was not just Bennett, but that whole draft. It was a shit draft and a terrible time to be tanking. You don't control how deep a draft is going to be, and every team that tanked for 2013 regretted it.

Otto Porter is turning himself into something, but he was not viewed as a #1 pick either. Everyone thought it would be Noel or Oladipo.

 

[tlance]

Who else in that draft changes a franchise? Antetokuonmpo at 15 and Gobert at 27. Neither considered worthy of the top 10. My point was not just Bennett, but that whole draft. It was a shit draft and a terrible time to be tanking. You don't control how deep a draft is going to be, and every team that tanked for 2013 regretted it.

Otto Porter is turning himself into something, but he was not viewed as a #1 pick either. Everyone thought it would be Noel or Oladipo.

I agree with that.

Thing is, if you go down the path of tanking, it really can't be for just one year. You have to commit for 3-4 to assemble a nucleus of young talent. The Suns, Lakers, 6ers and Wolves have done that, and now appear to be poised to start ascending.

Obviously some draft classes are better than others. There isn't a superstar atop every class. You might have bad ping pong ball luck for a couple years. That is okay. You have to trust the process. Teams that don't almost always end up being irrelevant in a league where only 3-4 teams have a realistic chance to win each year.

I would rather strive to be one of those 3-4 and strike out than to watch first round playoff exits year after year.

 

[bksballer89]

Nice to have a quality thread with no name calling even though we may not agree with each other. Very refreshing

 

[trojanfan12]

Cmon man. You don't really believe that do you? Russell and Crabbe attracting free agents?

That is nothing like the allure of Ball + Ingram + Magic + Hollywood.

Of course it's not. But if they show they can be competitive, they can possibly attract better players through FA. The Lakers can't sign everybody (unfortunately lol).

I agree that the Nets should have started this at least 3 years ago and they probably would have if the current GM were in place at the time.

However, they didn't have him then, so that GM just continued making the same mistakes and now they have a guy who seems to know what he's doing cleaning up the mess.

As someone else pointed out, they have no 1st round pick this coming season, so they took on Mozgov's contract to add Russell and they got Crabbe. Those moves essentially became their draft.

Neither of those 2 are going lead the Nets out of the woods, but they may be able to develop into players who can attract guys who can. It's still a bad situation because the previous regime was that bad, but it looks like the dumpster fire is at least partially contained now.

 

[tlance]

Nice to have a quality thread with no name calling even though we may not agree with each other. Very refreshing

Well said sir.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Mebert]

I agree with that.

Thing is, if you go down the path of tanking, it really can't be for just one year. You have to commit for 3-4 to assemble a nucleus of young talent. The Suns, Lakers, 6ers and Wolves have done that, and now appear to be poised to start ascending.

Obviously some draft classes are better than others. There isn't a superstar atop every class. You might have bad ping pong ball luck for a couple years. That is okay. You have to trust the process. Teams that don't almost always end up being irrelevant in a league where only 3-4 teams have a realistic chance to win each year.

I would rather strive to be one of those 3-4 and strike out than to watch first round playoff exits year after year.

Wolves never really committed to the tank. They had a borderline playoff team before Love decided to try knuckle pushups. Once the season got ruined by that they still would have tried to give it another go if Lebron had not decided to return to Cleveland. Having a star that you can trade for the #1 is far different than what the Nets are looking at. Although winning the KAT draft did not hurt. They never really tanked, they just watched McHale and Kahn try and put a competitive team together for a decade, which made it look like tanking.

 

[flyerhawk]

I agree with that.

Thing is, if you go down the path of tanking, it really can't be for just one year. You have to commit for 3-4 to assemble a nucleus of young talent. The Suns, Lakers, 6ers and Wolves have done that, and now appear to be poised to start ascending.

The Lakers did not try to tank. They tanked due to the incompetence of Jim Buss who was TRYING to make them good.

 

[tlance]

The Lakers did not try to tank. They tanked due to the incompetence of Jim Buss who was TRYING to make them good.

And really, that brings up another point.

I hate the term tanking. Nobody is losing on purpose. At least not players and coaches.

But, if you are a GM, you can't get stuck in the 35-45 win area for more than a couple years. That is the worst place to be and precisely where I think the Nets are eventually heading.