Brooklyn Nets early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon/Slava/Trader_Joe)

[Patsfan1081]

Because Sullinger likely wouldn't have preferred that. He can easily play 30+ minutes for the Raptors who have a really weak big man rotation, make a playoff appearance and get a lot more exposure. That's a much better opportunity to showcase himself for a bigger contract next offseason than play for the 14-win Brooklyn team.

If Scola wasn't signed, it is being the starter on the Nets just competing with Booker (and Anthony Bennett) for minutes, or being on Toronto competing with Patrick Patterson and Carroll at the pf spot. There definitely seems more minutes available on that Nets team. A lot more.

In addition, the Nets could have offered more money. Instead of signing the almost 29 year old Booker and the 36 year old Scola, the Nets could have offered Sullinger 10m per year for instance, but with a 1+TO. That way they would have had some upside which they seemed to somehow miss out almost entirely on for this offseason.

I'd prefer the Nets having Booker and Scola to Sullinger. Firstly, Sullinger isn't a 4, he's a 5. The Celtics understood that, and it looks like a lot of other teams did too. Secondly, the Nets are trying to change the culture there. They want good guys with good attitudes who will play the right way. Scola is all about that, as he showed again in Toronto last year (where he actually, technically started for a 56 win team). Booker is about that. Sullinger is not. I don't know if you've ever listened to an interview with Sullinger, but he has one of the worst attitudes you'll find around the NBA. He's been a locker room headache in the past, and he would have demanded/expected a starting spot (despite the fact he's not a starter). He's also an injury risk every year, and has a weight problem. There's a reason teams didn't rush to sign him this offseason.

I most likely missed about ten Celtics games last season, went to fourteen. Sullinger had a conditioning problem, that's why he was regulated to around twenty minutes a night. He wasn't however a cancer in the lockeroom, he got along with all of his teammates and Stevens. He kids around in interviews yes but he was never a jackass to the media also and he never demanded to start or threw a fit when he came off the bench. If he was in good shape he most likely won't led have been a pf, but the extra weight enable him to muscle centers and not get knocked around. His defense actually improved his final season with the team. I would easily take him over Scola/Booker, even with a minutes restriction. He's one of the better rebounders in the league and can still somewhat stretch the floor while doing it. At what he got paid I would have easily rather him over Zeller in Boston, but I understand with his conditioning he doesn't fit Stevens style of play.

[NBAMythbuster]

If Scola wasn't signed, it is being the starter on the Nets just competing with Booker (and Anthony Bennett) for minutes, or being on Toronto competing with Patrick Patterson and Carroll at the pf spot. There definitely seems more minutes available on that Nets team. A lot more.

In addition, the Nets could have offered more money. Instead of signing the almost 29 year old Booker and the 36 year old Scola, the Nets could have offered Sullinger 10m per year for instance, but with a 1+TO. That way they would have had some upside which they seemed to somehow miss out almost entirely on for this offseason.

I'd prefer the Nets having Booker and Scola to Sullinger. Firstly, Sullinger isn't a 4, he's a 5. The Celtics understood that, and it looks like a lot of other teams did too. Secondly, the Nets are trying to change the culture there. They want good guys with good attitudes who will play the right way. Scola is all about that, as he showed again in Toronto last year (where he actually, technically started for a 56 win team). Booker is about that. Sullinger is not. I don't know if you've ever listened to an interview with Sullinger, but he has one of the worst attitudes you'll find around the NBA. He's been a locker room headache in the past, and he would have demanded/expected a starting spot (despite the fact he's not a starter). He's also an injury risk every year, and has a weight problem. There's a reason teams didn't rush to sign him this offseason.

I most likely missed about ten Celtics games last season, went to fourteen. Sullinger had a conditioning problem, that's why he was regulated to around twenty minutes a night. He wasn't however a cancer in the lockeroom, he got along with all of his teammates and Stevens. He kids around in interviews yes but he was never a jackass to the media also and he never demanded to start or threw a fit when he came off the bench. If he was in good shape he most likely won't led have been a pf, but the extra weight enable him to muscle centers and not get knocked around. His defense actually improved his final season with the team. I would easily take him over Scola/Booker, even with a minutes restriction. He's one of the better rebounders in the league and can still somewhat stretch the floor while doing it. At what he got paid I would have easily rather him over Zeller in Boston, but I understand with his conditioning he doesn't fit Stevens style of play.

You and I are watching and listening to a very different Sullinger then. He can't get in shape either, that's the problem, so talking about that as an excuse sort of misses the point. This is a guy who is incredibly entitled. To dismiss his constant bad attitude as "joking around with the media" is incredibly generous.

[DeRoma]

I just don't get the 20.5 win Vegas line at all. The Nets have lots nothing that moved the needle, and gained a PG (something that absolutely killed them last year). Most importantly, the incentives are totally against tanking. The Philly line and the Nets line should be reversed.

I think Vegas was being generous. Can't see them winning 15 this year.

You'd be suprise. People don't realize the NBA has is not really all about talent. If that's the case, then Philly should be making the playoffs or all of the bad talented teams in the past. The Nets don't have any reasons to tank and that alone should give them at the very least 20 wins. There are other factors. I think they win 25+ this year.