Nets offseason in review (HW/Slava/bondom34/Trader_Joe/cl2117)

[HartfordWhalers]

And russell is good early in his career

No. He really hasn't been.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

And russell is good early in his career

No. He really hasn't been.

I strongly disagree, so does Sean Marks and judging from the generally positive reaction to the trade, so does a large portion of the NBA fan/media community. You're just gonna have to accept that.

[basketballwacko2]

Mozgov is a stiff and 31 yrs old to boot. Crabbe might turn out ok but still they are both massively over paid.

[HartfordWhalers]

And russell is good early in his career

No. He really hasn't been.

I strongly disagree.

Thats your prerogative, but in doing so you have already decided that:
Advanced stats are not in any way indicative of how a player plays.
Also, team wins and team production are not indicative of how a player plays I have to assume

So, what is the basis for saying Russell has been good? If it relies on some raw statistic we are going to end up back at the same place where the context for that raw statistic is not good -- the whole advanced stats thing.

It is much easier to claim that 'while his stats suck now, he will be great later' than 'while his stats suck now, he is great now'.

so does Sean Marks and judging from the generally positive reaction to the trade, so does a large portion of the NBA fan/media community. You're just gonna have to accept that.

This is a ridiculous claim. The people who are liking the trade for Brooklyn in general are liking it based on what they hope Russell can become, not that he has secretly been better than he has. If Marks really thinks Russell has already been great, then Marks is an idiot. But since we get to speculate about what Marks thinks (and act like it is fact), I'm going to speculate that Marks thinks the player is 21 and has a ton of upside still, not that he is already playing to that upside and has made it his floor.

Granted, Russell's performance in his first two years hasn't been great so his stock is down compared to when he was drafted

Read on Twitter

[basketballwacko2]

And russell is good early in his career

No. He really hasn't been.

I strongly disagree, so does Sean Marks and judging from the generally positive reaction to the trade, so does a large portion of the NBA fan/media community. You're just gonna have to accept that.

Oh well if Sean Marks thinks he's a stud then by all means! Time will tell Russell may become a decent player but he's clearly a huge disappointment at this point. If they redrafted the 2015 draft he would not be #2 over all.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

No. He really hasn't been.

I strongly disagree.

Thats your prerogative, but in doing so you have already decided that:
Advanced stats are not in any way indicative of how a player plays.
Also, team wins and team production are not indicative of how a player plays I have to assume

So, what is the basis for saying Russell has been good? If it relies on some raw statistic we are going to end up back at the same place where the context for that raw statistic is not good -- the whole advanced stats thing.

Cool I guess Sean Marks and their robust analytic department which goes much deeper than what's available on Basketball reference decided those things too. I'll trust them over you. No offense.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

No. He really hasn't been.

I strongly disagree, so does Sean Marks and judging from the generally positive reaction to the trade, so does a large portion of the NBA fan/media community. You're just gonna have to accept that.

Oh well if Sean Marks thinks he's a stud then by all means! Time will tell Russell may become a decent player but he's clearly a huge disappointment at this point. If they redrafted the 2015 draft he would not be #2 over all.

He hasn't been a huge disappointment at this point by any means.

Never said he would be #2 overall. That would obviously be Kristaps.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

Mozgov is a stiff and 31 yrs old to boot. Crabbe might turn out ok but still they are both massively over paid .

I don't think anyone has ever tried to suggest otherwise.

[basketballwacko2]

Again please do the simple google search. A lot of guards are inefficient early in their careers. I'll get you the list if I can find it but Tyreke Evans is an outlier on a list of fantastic players.

Through his first two years, Chris Paul was estimated by VORP to have added over 26 wins.
Through his first two years, Tyreke Evans was estimated to add 13.2 wins.
Through his first two years, Stephen Curry was estimated to add 12.7 wins.
Through his first two years, Tyreke Evans was estimated to add 8.9 wins.
Through his first two years, MCW was estimated to have added 4.8 wins.
Through his first two years, Russell was estimated to have added under 2.2 wins.

The impact of Russell's minutes largesse has been incomparable to actual star players in general.
So far the impact of Russell's minutes largesse has been worse than previous inefficient high usage players that have fallen off and are not viewed too favorably.

I disagree I'm gonna go with the other statistical projections and comparisons and trust in Sean Marks since he was trying to acquire Russell all season, over the opinions of someone who wants to see the Nets fail since his team benefits.

Why do we care if the Nets fail? The fact is the Lakers used Russell to dump that big stiff Mozgov and his bloated contract. If Russell was all that great they would not have sacrificed him to get out from under Mozgov.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

Through his first two years, Chris Paul was estimated by VORP to have added over 26 wins.
Through his first two years, Tyreke Evans was estimated to add 13.2 wins.
Through his first two years, Stephen Curry was estimated to add 12.7 wins.
Through his first two years, Tyreke Evans was estimated to add 8.9 wins.
Through his first two years, MCW was estimated to have added 4.8 wins.
Through his first two years, Russell was estimated to have added under 2.2 wins.

The impact of Russell's minutes largesse has been incomparable to actual star players in general.
So far the impact of Russell's minutes largesse has been worse than previous inefficient high usage players that have fallen off and are not viewed too favorably.

I disagree I'm gonna go with the other statistical projections and comparisons and trust in Sean Marks since he was trying to acquire Russell all season, over the opinions of someone who wants to see the Nets fail since his team benefits.

Why do we care if the Nets fail? The fact is the Lakers used Russell to dump that big stiff Mozgov and his bloated contract. If Russell was all that great they would not have sacrificed him to get out from under Mozgov.

He was their only way to get out of the contract and don't act like the Nets didn't have to give up their best player and a 1st rounder to get him, along with taking on Mozgovs deal.

They're trying to chase Lebron/George and I doubt anyone would keep Russell over those 2 guys.

[basketballwacko2]

Mozgov is a stiff and 31 yrs old to boot. Crabbe might turn out ok but still they are both massively over paid .

I don't think anyone has ever tried to suggest otherwise.

Ok but it seemed to me that you were trying to say that Mozgov is a gonna be a productive player. I wanted to point out that if the nets are gonna be a run and gun team Mozgov is gonna do a lot of towel waving from the bench because he's a stiff.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

Mozgov is a stiff and 31 yrs old to boot. Crabbe might turn out ok but still they are both massively over paid .

I don't think anyone has ever tried to suggest otherwise.

Ok but it seemed to me that you were trying to say that Mozgov is a gonna be a productive player. I wanted to point out that if the nets are gonna be a run and gun team Mozgov is gonna do a lot of towel waving from the bench because he's a stiff.

Just false. He's overpaid but he's not Andrew Nicholson. He deserves minutes in the NBA and can play in a uptempo system.

[basketballwacko2]

I disagree I'm gonna go with the other statistical projections and comparisons and trust in Sean Marks since he was trying to acquire Russell all season, over the opinions of someone who wants to see the Nets fail since his team benefits.

Why do we care if the Nets fail? The fact is the Lakers used Russell to dump that big stiff Mozgov and his bloated contract. If Russell was all that great they would not have sacrificed him to get out from under Mozgov.

He was their only way to get out of the contract and don't act like the Nets didn't have to give up their best player and a 1st rounder to get him, along with taking on Mozgovs deal.

They're trying to chase Lebron/George and I doubt anyone would keep Russell over those 2 guys.

This is why I said I wouldn't take Mozgov or Deng even if they were offering the #2 pick over all. I'm gonna bow out of this discussion at this point.

[bondom34]

I think the question is what other ways could they obtain young talent. Especially young talent with this much potential.

[HartfordWhalers]

I strongly disagree.

Thats your prerogative, but in doing so you have already decided that:
Advanced stats are not in any way indicative of how a player plays.
Also, team wins and team production are not indicative of how a player plays I have to assume

So, what is the basis for saying Russell has been good? If it relies on some raw statistic we are going to end up back at the same place where the context for that raw statistic is not good -- the whole advanced stats thing.

Cool I guess Sean Marks and their robust analytic department which goes much deeper than what's available on Basketball reference decided those things too. I'll trust them over you. No offense.

The logical loop of:
The Nets made a good move. We know it is a good move solely because the Nets made it.
Is a pretty awful argument that in all honesty adds nothing to any debate. But here it is worse. It isn't even that.

Instead it is Marks traded for him so he has already been good elsewhere. Even in the self fulfilling any Nets move is a good move that doesn't actually equate to that. Marks has been investing in bets for future production upside, versus going win now.

Russell going forward may be worth the cap cost of Movgov (and the 27th pick, and whatever Brook could get elsewhere in a trade) -- if you read the review you will see my take on that -- but that doesn't mean Russell was already good. He wasn't by pretty much all measures.

[Roy Tarpley]

It's amazing that there's such unanimity around the need to trade Lin by mid-season and the Nets coming in at around 28 wins.

Last year, the Nets would've won 30 games with a healthy Lin.

Record with Lin during first five games 2-3
Record without Lin during next 18 games 5-13
Record with Lin during his next stint back 1-6
Record without Lin during next 26 games 1-25
Record with Lin during his next stint back 11-14
Record without Lin during last game when starters sat 0-1

With Lin 14-23 (.378)
w/o Lin 6-39 (.133)

If you extrapolate a .378 win percentage over 82 games, that's 31 wins. Of course, even in a healthy season, Lin wouldn't play a full 82 games. But there were also games Lin played last year where he wasn't 100% or he played less than 20 minutes because he wasn't 100%. So assuming this all washes out, I'll stick with 31 wins with a healthy Lin. So this should be the baseline going into next season. I'd also note that ESPN's final wins prediction last year for the Nets was 29 wins, and the mean win total prediction for RealGM Nets fans last year (I conducted an informal poll) was around 29 wins. So 31 wins was close to the expected win total for ESPN and Nets fans.

This year's ESPN early season prediction is 30 wins and the mean win total prediction for RealGM Nets fans this year is 33 wins.

Not only should we expect a healthy Lin, we're:

- replacing a SG rotation of Foye/Whitehead/Bogdanovic/Kilpatrick with Russell/Levert/Kilpatrick
- replacing a SF rotation of RHJ/Levert/Harris with Crabbe/Levert
- replacing a PF rotation of Booker/RHJ with RHJ/Carroll
- replacing a C rotation of Lopez/Hamilton with Mozgov/Allen/Booker

We're arguably better in 3 of the 4 position AND our bench depth is incredibly improved. We went from:

Dinwiddie, Goodwin, McDaniel, Whitehead, Bennett, Harris, Hamilton, Acy, Scola, Vazquez to
Levert, Booker, Dinwiddie, Kilpatrick, Whitehead, Harris, Allen

I think we're a mid-30s win team and if things roll right, we could challenge for the playoffs. Don't take my word for it, even Metta World Peace tweeted out that the Nets will make the 8th seed!

Read on Twitter

If the Nets are contending for the playoffs around All-Star break, I doubt they'd be willing to trade Lin. He's not greedy, I'm guessing he's going to opt out at the end of the season but re-sign at a modest bump, say from $12m to $15m per year. Lin loves the Nets and the only way he'd leave is if (a) they force him to the bench and (b) they won't pay at least $15m/year.

[Texas Chuck]

It's amazing that there's such unanimity around the need to trade Lin by mid-season and the Nets coming in at around 28 wins.

Thanks for this post and your overall perspective on the Nets.

Speaking only for me, I think its really hard for me to wrap my mind around the question of no more BroLo. Was he clearly the team's best player especially offensively and his loss is going to be felt in ways not immediately understood by a quick look at the overall ins and outs of the roster? Or is he a good player, but not really a difference maker and the team will benefit from moving more to a perimeter-based attack like the league has been trending for years now?

I tend to think especially early he's going to be a major loss and the guards, including Lin, are going to find life harder without the attention he drew and the spacing he provided. Now they do have overall more talent so I'd expect them to continue to improve as the year goes on. Hard for me to see playoffs because this remains a league where you are mostly only as good as your best players, and their best players aren't anything special.

[Roy Tarpley]

It's amazing that there's such unanimity around the need to trade Lin by mid-season and the Nets coming in at around 28 wins.

Thanks for this post and your overall perspective on the Nets.

Speaking only for me, I think its really hard for me to wrap my mind around the question of no more BroLo. Was he clearly the team's best player especially offensively and his loss is going to be felt in ways not immediately understood by a quick look at the overall ins and outs of the roster? Or is he a good player, but not really a difference maker and the team will benefit from moving more to a perimeter-based attack like the league has been trending for years now?

I tend to think especially early he's going to be a major loss and the guards, including Lin, are going to find life harder without the attention he drew and the spacing he provided. Now they do have overall more talent so I'd expect them to continue to improve as the year goes on. Hard for me to see playoffs because this remains a league where you are mostly only as good as your best players, and their best players aren't anything special.

That's a fair take. Having watched 90%+ of the Nets games last year, I know that Lopez, while not without his positives, was a flawed player. He was a poor rebounder, got killed defensively because he couldn't play PNR defense well, and was a 1Q player. I think Mozgov and even Booker at C will provide a level of defense that the Nets didn't have last year.

I'm a lot more sanguine about Lin, Russell, Crabbe, Levert, and Carroll but I can see why others don't think so. We'll just have to let the season play out.

[patman52]

I like what the nets have done. I would have spent the money on Dedmon. I think his addition would have taken them to 35 wins.

[Prospect Dong]

Go ahead and try to show it then.

Putting up some inefficient counting stats is not the same as actually being good. Or did you mean a star like Tyreke Evans?

Again please do the simple google search. A lot of guards are inefficient early in their careers. I'll get you the list if I can find it but Tyreke Evans is an outlier on a list of fantastic players.

Here's a Ringer quote discussing his Rookie year:
"He was one of only 18 rookies (age 20 or younger at the end of the season) who have scored at least 20 points per 100 possessions with an assist percentage over 20, per Basketball-Reference. The list includes Hall of Famers: Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas; All-Stars: Stephon Marbury, Gilbert Arenas, LeBron James, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, John Wall, and Kyrie Irving; proven veterans: Mike Bibby, Lamar Odom, Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings, and Brandon Knight; and promising youngsters: Zach LaVine and Emmanuel Mudiay"

Sorry couldnt find the quote on his broader achievements.

That list looks like the same sort of carefully calibrated comparison that had rookie Anthony Morrow being compared statistically to Magic Johnson, or Rudy Fernandez breaking the rookie record for three pointers made. It's interesting in a vacuum, but you're much better off looking at holistic measures which you didn't tailor to the guy you're trying to rate.