Paul Pierce to the Wizards

[enetric]

Why are you guys so happy that two of our best players from last year (Pierce and KG) are going to leave? Do you not understand we're on the verge of giving up a lottery pick to the Hawks unless we make the playoffs?

KG was our best defender and rebounder, and Pierce was our 2nd best overall player. They're not easily replaced.

Both of those players are washed up.

I am more upset that the Nets wasted several draft picks to just bring them in for one season than I am about them leaving.

You guys seriously overvalue them when they both were on a serious decline. We can pull up several game threads where the same people stating that this is terrible were calling Pierce a god awful turnover machine and KG horrible for how he couldn't even finish around the rim and bricked a ton of jumpers
K
stop romanticizing them please...they weren't that great. King should be fired though.

You are right people should not romanticize the players. But you know what else we shouldn't romanticize? Late first round picks like they are all potential unwrapped nuggets of gold instead of the busts 90% of them are.

Teams have to make decisions not on potential but on team direction. Are you a buyer or a seller? Trading two #3 picks for a supposed superstar made us buyers for the few years to follow. I am not advocating that all picks are worthless. I am saying that during a buying window...A win now focus is what you should want from your team. Giving up a couple of low picks so far is the big drama???

Compare that to Magic fans losing Dwight. Drafting Oden instead of Durant. Darko Milicic over several great players or watching your team decide 4 mil more for Harden is too much. And i have read countless times on this board how some of the Gms of those moves are geniuses.

We gave up late picks to try and complete the gaps and our team spent more money than any other in history to try and go for broke. Boo hoo to the picks. Hopefully the last one won't be a killer. But for now...as far as the trade with Boston? Let's try a little perspective. Salary cutting this season sucks but the trade was still the right move at the time.

[enetric]

Oh Billy!!!!

This feels like a Cable Man mixed with Dumb and Dumber quote...

Didn't mind not bringing Paul back...but to not get something back for him? Brutal. Let's hope we can trade KG before the deadline (if he opts in) and get some value back from a contender.

I told you in the other thread not to be surprised.

And how is not getting something here on King? Ownership direction was very clear. We want no payroll for PP's spot.

So do the math. Free agent that does not need an s& to get his salary. Can go anywhere for the price he is worth. To do an S&t ownership would have approved that means it has to be with someone who has pure cap space or an existing te....plus PP has to want to go there. And if they have the cap space and they want PP and he wants them....why give us any assets for him? Just sign him!

King's hands were tied here.

[enetric]

I'm not so sure about that especially if DWill is hit with the injury bug as well: Jack/Brown/Teletovic/Plumlee is not much better than Felton/Smith/Amare or Bargs/Chandler

i would say it most certainly is. especially when you consider tyson chandler, amare, and bogs missed a ton of time to injury themselves and smith is a giant chucker who doesnt really help you win

also not sure why bogs and kirilenko dont make your list.

either way we are a lock to make the playoffs. unless dwill, lopez, AND johnson all go down for the year

I actually think losing Blatche is our biggest blow on the court. Jack for Livingston and we can patchwork PP's minutes. But no idea what to expect from Brook anymore....bar has to be set low for KG. We are thin front court wise.

[MGrand15]

I'm not so sure about that especially if DWill is hit with the injury bug as well: Jack/Brown/Teletovic/Plumlee is not much better than Felton/Smith/Amare or Bargs/Chandler

i would say it most certainly is. especially when you consider tyson chandler, amare, and bogs missed a ton of time to injury themselves and smith is a giant chucker who doesnt really help you win

also not sure why bogs and kirilenko dont make your list.

either way we are a lock to make the playoffs. unless dwill, lopez, AND johnson all go down for the year

I actually think losing Blatche is our biggest blow on the court. Jack for Livingston and we can patchwork PP's minutes. But no idea what to expect from Brook anymore....bar has to be set low for KG. We are thin front court wise.

With Lopez, KG and Plumlee - there was no room for Blatche. He was solid overall and I liked him but he's much better at center and we don't need 4 centers (even if 2 of them are restricted). Trading Lopez for Blatche is a giant upgrade.

Why set the bar low for KG? When he was on the floor last year, he turned us into a great defensive team and was great on the boards. Top notch leadership. Great passing/BBIQ. His jump shot got much better as the year went on. His only real issue was finishing inside and minute restrictions.

[MrDollarBills]

Why are you guys so happy that two of our best players from last year (Pierce and KG) are going to leave? Do you not understand we're on the verge of giving up a lottery pick to the Hawks unless we make the playoffs?

KG was our best defender and rebounder, and Pierce was our 2nd best overall player. They're not easily replaced.

Both of those players are washed up.

I am more upset that the Nets wasted several draft picks to just bring them in for one season than I am about them leaving.

You guys seriously overvalue them when they both were on a serious decline. We can pull up several game threads where the same people stating that this is terrible were calling Pierce a god awful turnover machine and KG horrible for how he couldn't even finish around the rim and bricked a ton of jumpers
K
stop romanticizing them please...they weren't that great. King should be fired though.

You are right people should not romanticize the players. But you know what else we shouldn't romanticize? Late first round picks like they are all potential unwrapped nuggets of gold instead of the busts 90% of them are.

Teams have to make decisions not on potential but on team direction. Are you a buyer or a seller? Trading two #3 picks for a supposed superstar made us buyers for the few years to follow. I am not advocating that all picks are worthless. I am saying that during a buying window...A win now focus is what you should want from your team. Giving up a couple of low picks so far is the big drama???

Compare that to Magic fans losing Dwight. Drafting Oden instead of Durant. Darko Milicic over several great players or watching your team decide 4 mil more for Harden is too much. And i have read countless times on this board how some of the Gms of those moves are geniuses.

We gave up late picks to try and complete the gaps and our team spent more money than any other in history to try and go for broke. Boo hoo to the picks. Hopefully the last one won't be a killer. But for now...as far as the trade with Boston? Let's try a little perspective. Salary cutting this season sucks but the trade was still the right move at the time.

It was, and you are right about the picks. I just feel that there could have been a)protections on the picks and b)clearly we overpaid....as usual.

[MrDollarBills]

yea, you dont worry about the money when it can improve your team or increase your ceiling... at this point signing pierce is just throwing money into a fire. he doesnt make us much better, and without him we arent much worse. we lock him in for 6-10 million next season when letting him walk allows us to get under the Tax and position us better for the undeniable rebuild.



signign pierce isnt a move to make us a championship contender.... and its arguably a move that hurts our chances at building one down the road by making it harder to get under the tax next year and blocks minutes for young players who will actually be here in 2016 and beyond

our big fear shouldnt be proky spending. we know he will spend.

the fear should be this team making a panic move like signing brook lopez to an extension

Refusing to sign Pierce may have been the smartest move the Russians have made since they acquired the team.

You cannot be serious

What purpose does resigning him accomplish?

This team was not contending with him, so why pay the luxury tax to keep him?

Do you guys want this team to have flexibility to do sign and trades or not? Do you want the Nets to once again sustain serious financial losses due to a roster that isn't going to accomplish anything?

Seriously, what does retaining Pierce actually do for the team? Please don't say leadership or mentoring either.

[MrDollarBills]

Also, here's what I was alluding to in my previous two posts, that this signing represents the first decision under Prok that was made for financial reasons over business reasons and why there's some doubts creeping into my head about just how willing he'll be to spend going forward: http://nypost.com/2014/07/13/does-pierc ... r-a-title/

The man spent a record amount of money for 44 wins, a 6th place finish, and a 2nd round exit that lasted five games

If you were him, what would you do?

I don't blame him one bit

[kerry kittles]

Refusing to sign Pierce may have been the smartest move the Russians have made since they acquired the team.

You cannot be serious

What purpose does resigning him accomplish?

This team was not contending with him, so why pay the luxury tax to keep him?

Do you guys want this team to have flexibility to do sign and trades or not? Do you want the Nets to once again sustain serious financial losses due to a roster that isn't going to accomplish anything?

Seriously, what does retaining Pierce actually do for the team? Please don't say leadership or mentoring either.

I said he was our 2nd best player, our most efficient scorer, the leader of our team. Losing that hurts. It's rehashing old arguments, but he's a better defensive rebounder than Mirza, a more efficient scorer, and a better defender. We're thin at power forward. When AK misses half the season we don't have another 4 on the roster.

It wouldn't have been hard at all to move Pierce with his contract. EVERYONE said to me we wouldn't have an issue moving Dudley if he acquired him in S&T, but we wouldn't be able to move Pierce? The Clippers who were pressing us for that S&T suddenly wouldn't be interested? A team like the Warriors that had a large $9.3 TPE wouldn't take Pierce on his deal? It wouldn't be hard at all to move Pierce at any time during his deal.

And you're saying the best move in the Prok era was deciding not to pay luxury tax on Pierce? That's ridiculous. This decision will be better than signing Livingston to the vet minimum, drafting Plumlee, etc. You're saying it's better than the Jack trade we made this summer acquiring a young player than can hopefully be developed and a guy who can play point guard/combo guard next to DWill. That's ludicrous! Even if you're preaching letting go of Pierce to develop youth you have to rank the deals to get the young players to develop above this or there would be nothing to develop.

[kerry kittles]

Also, here's what I was alluding to in my previous two posts, that this signing represents the first decision under Prok that was made for financial reasons over business reasons and why there's some doubts creeping into my head about just how willing he'll be to spend going forward: http://nypost.com/2014/07/13/does-pierc ... r-a-title/

The man spent a record amount of money for 44 wins, a 6th place finish, and a 2nd round exit that lasted five games

If you were him, what would you do?

I don't blame him one bit

I've been saying it shows a change in direction. Explain why he was okay with paying Jordan Hill $19 million for half a season, but not okay with paying Pierce $20 million?

[MrDollarBills]

Also, here's what I was alluding to in my previous two posts, that this signing represents the first decision under Prok that was made for financial reasons over business reasons and why there's some doubts creeping into my head about just how willing he'll be to spend going forward: http://nypost.com/2014/07/13/does-pierc ... r-a-title/

The man spent a record amount of money for 44 wins, a 6th place finish, and a 2nd round exit that lasted five games

If you were him, what would you do?

I don't blame him one bit

I've been saying it shows a change in direction. Explain why he was okay with paying Jordan Hill $19 million for half a season, but not okay with paying Pierce $20 million?

At that point it was the heart of the season. Now that things have settled down and reality has set in, his mindset is different.

That luxury tax bill and a 5 round drubbing in the 2nd round provided Mikhail with quite the moment of clarity, I imagine.

[MrDollarBills]

You cannot be serious

What purpose does resigning him accomplish?

This team was not contending with him, so why pay the luxury tax to keep him?

Do you guys want this team to have flexibility to do sign and trades or not? Do you want the Nets to once again sustain serious financial losses due to a roster that isn't going to accomplish anything?

Seriously, what does retaining Pierce actually do for the team? Please don't say leadership or mentoring either.

I said he was our 2nd best player, our most efficient scorer, the leader of our team. Losing that hurts. It's rehashing old arguments, but he's a better defensive rebounder than Mirza, a more efficient scorer, and a better defender. We're thin at power forward. When AK misses half the season we don't have another 4 on the roster.

It wouldn't have been hard at all to move Pierce with his contract. EVERYONE said to me we wouldn't have an issue moving Dudley if he acquired him in S&T, but we wouldn't be able to move Pierce? The Clippers who were pressing us for that S&T suddenly wouldn't be interested? A team like the Warriors that had a large $9.3 TPE wouldn't take Pierce on his deal? It wouldn't be hard at all to move Pierce at any time during his deal.

And you're saying the best move in the Prok era was deciding not to pay luxury tax on Pierce? That's ridiculous. This decision will be better than signing Livingston to the vet minimum, drafting Plumlee, etc. You're saying it's better than the Jack trade we made this summer acquiring a young player than can hopefully be developed and a guy who can play point guard/combo guard next to DWill. That's ludicrous! Even if you're preaching letting go of Pierce to develop youth you have to rank the deals to get the young players to develop above this or there would be nothing to develop.

Eh, I was being hyperbolic. I just found the move to be prudent. I would have preferred to S&T him but really, it is what it is.

[Paradise]

Also, here's what I was alluding to in my previous two posts, that this signing represents the first decision under Prok that was made for financial reasons over business reasons and why there's some doubts creeping into my head about just how willing he'll be to spend going forward: http://nypost.com/2014/07/13/does-pierc ... r-a-title/

The man spent a record amount of money for 44 wins, a 6th place finish, and a 2nd round exit that lasted five games

If you were him, what would you do?

I don't blame him one bit

I've been saying it shows a change in direction. Explain why he was okay with paying Jordan Hill $19 million for half a season, but not okay with paying Pierce $20 million?

Ownership was probably thinking alone these lines:

The franchise was projected to lose $130 million after signing Kirilenko, Alan Anderson to fill out the roster. They didn't even want to sign a 15th man due to the tax hit it would cause. Ownership clearly thought it would be worth it. We all expected a team that could compete in the ECF and beyond. It didn't happen and they couldn't even dominate Toronto.

Re-signing Pierce adds up to 30 million in taxes and with KG considering retirement. Might as well kill two birds with one stone considering the Nets won 49 games and had similar success before Pierce/KG arrived.

Why continue to pump cash into something that can't be easily fixed? Why overpay certain players when their production is equal to another player making 5 million? Not to mention on a decline.

When you play Devil's Advocate and look at it from a ownership perspective, It makes sense. Now, losing Pierce for absolutely nothing is a different story but I have no problem with them wanting to be conservative with spending and going in a direction of stockpiling prospects.

[kerry kittles]

The man spent a record amount of money for 44 wins, a 6th place finish, and a 2nd round exit that lasted five games

If you were him, what would you do?

I don't blame him one bit

I've been saying it shows a change in direction. Explain why he was okay with paying Jordan Hill $19 million for half a season, but not okay with paying Pierce $20 million?

At that point it was the heart of the season. Now that things have settled down and reality has set in, his mindset is different.

That luxury tax bill and a 5 round drubbing in the 2nd round provided Mikhail with quite the moment of clarity, I imagine.

Okay I can understand that line of thinking. I'm just thinking they might cut down on spending in general not just I'm not spending because this team's ceiling is the 2nd round. Would ownership be willing to sign off on another Hunphries deal that makes little to no sense financially, but makes sense from a basketball perspective, create a large expiring that can be used to match salaries and acquire talent. It's just this coming out on the heels of the $140 loss, the Post article, and record luxury tax payment.

Assuming Prok had this moment of clarity in the offseason. Said hey I wanted to come in and win a championship in 5 years and failed. Look back at all the overspending, the shortsighted moves, see the Spurs win the championship in dominating fashion without a high payroll. Maybe he should look how RC Buford built that team and fire the man we have running the show on the complete opposite end, Billy King.

[SpeedyG]

Oh Billy!!!!

This feels like a Cable Man mixed with Dumb and Dumber quote...

Didn't mind not bringing Paul back...but to not get something back for him? Brutal. Let's hope we can trade KG before the deadline (if he opts in) and get some value back from a contender.

I told you in the other thread not to be surprised.

And how is not getting something here on King? Ownership direction was very clear. We want no payroll for PP's spot.

So do the math. Free agent that does not need an s& to get his salary. Can go anywhere for the price he is worth. To do an S&t ownership would have approved that means it has to be with someone who has pure cap space or an existing te....plus PP has to want to go there. And if they have the cap space and they want PP and he wants them....why give us any assets for him? Just sign him!

King's hands were tied here.

Did we really not want payroll for Paul's spot? We don't know that. Even King has been quoted as that we made an offer to Paul. So to flat out say that it was a salary dump move, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Even Hollins talked about the conversation he had with Prok about his "resources".

This wasn't a salary dump, but a deal of value...of which Paul has little to the Nets at this point in his career.

We had offers for Paul (with the Clippers, where we get a future 1st back). If we weren't going to pay Paul the amount of the MLE, why didn't we just take on that deal then?

And no, I'm not proclaiming that 1st rounder as the next Lebron. But it does give us flexibility (as in trading it to get one of ours back, or for another 1st in a different year that will allow us to trade that year's 1st, etc...)

It just sounds like an indecisive decision by King not to make a move on Paul. And by the time we decided "nah we're good"...it was too late as the team he wanted to go to had already made other moves as well.

Let's not kid ourselves. Paul never wanted to leave Boston. It took him nearly a month of playing with the Nets to really "belong" here. He was not looking to move to Washington...where he has zero ties.

It was Brooklyn or LA, maybe Chicago.

He went to Washington because we said no, and they were the ones left who was interested and had the money to spare.

[Starbury2CptJax]

The man spent a record amount of money for 44 wins, a 6th place finish, and a 2nd round exit that lasted five games

If you were him, what would you do?

I don't blame him one bit

I've been saying it shows a change in direction. Explain why he was okay with paying Jordan Hill $19 million for half a season, but not okay with paying Pierce $20 million?

Ownership was probably thinking alone these lines:

The franchise was projected to lose $130 million after signing Kirilenko, Alan Anderson to fill out the roster. They didn't even want to sign a 15th man due to the tax hit it would cause. Ownership clearly thought it would be worth it. We all expected a team that could compete in the ECF and beyond. It didn't happen and they couldn't even dominate Toronto.

Re-signing Pierce adds up to 30 million in taxes and with KG considering retirement. Might as well kill two birds with one stone considering the Nets won 49 games and had similar success before Pierce/KG arrived.

Why continue to pump cash into something that can't be easily fixed? Why overpay certain players when their production is equal to another player making 5 million? Not to mention on a decline.

When you play Devil's Advocate and look at it from a ownership perspective, It makes sense. Now, losing Pierce for absolutely nothing is a different story but I have no problem with them wanting to be conservative with spending and going in a direction of stockpiling prospects.

So now spending big matters and they see how constricting it can be if you aren't responsible? If only they realized this when they first bought the team and decided to actually build a team instead of winning the backpages.

[Starbury2CptJax]

I wish I could SIG your whole post. This is the goddamn TRUTH(no pun intended).

This has been a comedy of errors from day 1.

Also, add the major whiff of selecting Marshon Brooks before Jimmy Butler.

Worst run basketball team in pro sports by FAR.

Now here's the kicker that no one thinks about...Prokhorov openly inquired about how much the franchise would fetch if he sold it.

Food for thought.

The irony of that is that Avery WANTED Jimmy Butler over Marshon Brooks. Now I'm not a verified expert but I think the Jimmy Butler under AJ would not be the same Jimmy Butler under Thibs. And judging from how Avery used to clown Brooks on the Association show, I think he made sure that he put Marshon in positions to fail. Granted Brooks has his own flaws he is not self-aware of but Avery seemed good to make it difficult for him to correct his errors.

Now I'll just wonder if the Nets had Butler, traded for his college teammate Matthews who was also Deron's teammate at Utah, tanked and kept the pick, kept Gerald Green who was one of Williams best running partners, brought in Kirilenko. Even if the Magic didnt take Lopez, there is no doubt that the Nets could've lured Millsap to the Nets to re-unite with his old buddies and then go out and snag Korver when the Bulls were salary dumping.

Deron/Matthews/Kirilenko/Millsap/Lopez with Butler/Green/Korver on the bench plus the lottery pick? I mean this is all hypothetical for the good but having flexibility and movable assets is key in the league now.

[MrDollarBills]

I wish I could SIG your whole post. This is the goddamn TRUTH(no pun intended).

This has been a comedy of errors from day 1.

Also, add the major whiff of selecting Marshon Brooks before Jimmy Butler.

Worst run basketball team in pro sports by FAR.

Now here's the kicker that no one thinks about...Prokhorov openly inquired about how much the franchise would fetch if he sold it.

Food for thought.

The irony of that is that Avery WANTED Jimmy Butler over Marshon Brooks. Now I'm not a verified expert but I think the Jimmy Butler under AJ would not be the same Jimmy Butler under Thibs. And judging from how Avery used to clown Brooks on the Association show, I think he made sure that he put Marshon in positions to fail. Granted Brooks has his own flaws he is not self-aware of but Avery seemed good to make it difficult for him to correct his errors.

Now I'll just wonder if the Nets had Butler, traded for his college teammate Matthews who was also Deron's teammate at Utah, tanked and kept the pick, kept Gerald Green who was one of Williams best running partners, brought in Kirilenko. Even if the Magic didnt take Lopez, there is no doubt that the Nets could've lured Millsap to the Nets to re-unite with his old buddies and then go out and snag Korver when the Bulls were salary dumping.

Deron/Matthews/Kirilenko/Millsap/Lopez with Butler/Green/Korver on the bench plus the lottery pick? I mean this is all hypothetical for the good but having flexibility and movable assets is key in the league now.

Yeah, and the reality is now that all of the teams that can't spend and have to be prudent are able to make moves while the teams that spend like drunken armymen at a south korean whore house are all **** ed up.

It's not worth it to ever do what we do unless we have an elite core of talent. We did not prior to the KG/PP trade, and it was a mistake in hindsight to spend that brazenly to surround Johnson/Lopez/Williams with those guys at that price.

We are basically realizing that we have to start over. Hopefully we find a way to build the right way even though all of our picks are gone for the rest of the decade.

[Paradise]

I've been saying it shows a change in direction. Explain why he was okay with paying Jordan Hill $19 million for half a season, but not okay with paying Pierce $20 million?

Ownership was probably thinking alone these lines:

The franchise was projected to lose $130 million after signing Kirilenko, Alan Anderson to fill out the roster. They didn't even want to sign a 15th man due to the tax hit it would cause. Ownership clearly thought it would be worth it. We all expected a team that could compete in the ECF and beyond. It didn't happen and they couldn't even dominate Toronto.

Re-signing Pierce adds up to 30 million in taxes and with KG considering retirement. Might as well kill two birds with one stone considering the Nets won 49 games and had similar success before Pierce/KG arrived.

Why continue to pump cash into something that can't be easily fixed? Why overpay certain players when their production is equal to another player making 5 million? Not to mention on a decline.

When you play Devil's Advocate and look at it from a ownership perspective, It makes sense. Now, losing Pierce for absolutely nothing is a different story but I have no problem with them wanting to be conservative with spending and going in a direction of stockpiling prospects.

So now spending big matters and they see how constricting it can be if you aren't responsible? If only they realized this when they first bought the team and decided to actually build a team instead of winning the backpages.

It had to do with building a NY fanbase and fixing the value of a franchise that was considered useless in the NBA and during the lockout, LeBron James went as far as to say the Nets should be in the conversation for contraction.

30th in Attendance
31th in Merchandise
30th in Ticket Revenue
30th in NBA Franchise Value

We aren't the only team to chase stars and quality players through trades and free agency. The Lakers, Rockets, Mavs, Clippers, Heat have all done it. The difference between us and those teams is they don't overpay in trades and they go after real superstars. Our Plan A is glorified all-stars and our Plan B is boarderline all-stars. Building through the draft is equally as risky. You can either end up like Cleveland or end up like Sacramento. The Nets were steering into that Sacramento direction.

[Prokorov]

Why set the bar low for KG? When he was on the floor last year, he turned us into a great defensive team and was great on the boards. Top notch leadership. Great passing/BBIQ. His jump shot got much better as the year went on. His only real issue was finishing inside and minute restrictions.

if eel like these are things people just throw out there regarding KG, but really arent true.

I felt like he provided very litte leadership. defensively we were good but not great with him on the floor. his shooting went up later in the year, but his attempts were cut in half. and his finishing was terrible all year.

he really didnt provide the super positive presence some allude to. and when you factor in that he should decline again for the 4th straight year, his value is even more diminished. We also have no one who can finish at the rim or a threat to score in the paint when he is on the floor

[Prokorov]

I said he was our 2nd best player, our most efficient scorer, the leader of our team. Losing that hurts. It's rehashing old arguments, but he's a better defensive rebounder than Mirza, a more efficient scorer, and a better defender. We're thin at power forward. When AK misses half the season we don't have another 4 on the roster.

.

i really dont see how it hurts.. our floor and ceiling are basically the same. and we are still relying on the same things to determine out success