165bows wrote:Celtics2014 wrote:It's important to remember all the positives the Nets have gotten from the trade.
They lost two years of Gerald Wallace
Got 1 year of Pierce and Garnett (Probably would not have made it to the second round of the play offs without them)
Has at least 1 more year of KG
Seems even
In seriousness I think the trade was a big win for them before Pierce and KG had played a single minute. They had made a giant investment in costs in building an arena and moving the team. It's clear based on the deal and the several preceding it they needed to go into that year with significant fanfare and you could argue they high price paid helped them do that. A single late first wouldn't indicate some great acquisition, the price paid said we are bringing in Hall of Famers.
They were widely looked at as title contenders last summer to the point people were complaining when they inked the Kirilenko deal that it was unfair.
So while it's a big blow to their future, the Nets got their part of the return in exactly the way they needed it before the first preseason game was played. The fact they didn't even make an attempt to resign Pierce just further shows this move was about business for them more than basketball.
Try telling this to Nets fans and they'll accuse you of trolling. This would make sense if they actually made money. That team lost $144 million last year, which is the main reason why they didn't sign Pierce. His salary of $5 million would have put them in the repeater tax territory. That trade was a bad business move, and would have only made sense on the basketball side of things if they won a title.
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using RealGM Forums mobile app
