What Do We Do with Our Remaining Capspace?

[vincecarter4pres]

I'd like to float the idea of AK out there. He's a huge expiring, so he will let you meet the min salary requirements, he won't clog up your cap space for next season, and he's a pretty good player who would look terrific next to Favors and Lopez.

I think the Jazz would be willing to let him go for free if they keep Boozer, but, I could be wrong on that one, the Jazz have always liked AK. But, assuming that they would be willing to let him go for nothing, would you consider that option?

I would say this would be a last resort/trade deadline deal to get you guys out of the tax and make sure our owner doesn't get stuck in the 75% rule, but I still firmly believe you have to send us a future 1st rounder to get gifted that amount of profit altering salary relief.

[jazzfan1971]

Well, I think a 2nd from NJ would be reasonable. But, I dont' think a lotto protected first from Utah is out of the question either. Maybe both. NJ sends a 2nd and the Jazz send a future lotto protected 1st. (turns into cash in 5 years if jazz fail to make playoffs for 5 years, like that would happen.)

Of course, it may be possible that NJ can bend Utah over a barrel and give them a good rodgering, forcing them to cough up a couple 1sts. But, I think that AK would have some value to a couple other teams that can offer cap space, so I don't know if KOC woudl bend over for NJ.

I kinda doubt it. I think more like free. Maybe the Jazz cough up a heavily protected 1st if you're very good negotiators or maybe you throw in a piece that the Jazz like. (a backup pg or c?)

I dunno how all the details would shake out, just seeing if the interest would be there from your side assuming all the other big free agents are gone, and this is just a last resort type deal.

[JKiddy]

Boozer just went to the Bulls. F$ck.

I am cool with David Lee. He's younger cheaper and less injury prone. I think he's a great fit at PF for us. Plus, he plays better defense and ALWAYS PLAYS HARD. He can be moved to a 6th man role in Favors 3rd year if we don't pay him near the max. I say we sign him 5 years 60 million/65 max. If you look at the number he is Boozer but several years younger with more steals and blocks.

We grab Lee and Korver/Reddick (need a 3 point specialist and Ray might also be available for a 2 year deal) with a nice backup C and backup PG I think we are nice.

[vincecarter4pres]

Lee will get max or extremely close to it, book it.

[ecuhus1981]

Lee will get max or extremely close to it, book it.

Well, yes, but his maxis different than, say, LeBron's. I think he'll get 5 years, $80 mil or so, just like Boozer. I'm hoping he signs with us. I'm also hoping he isn't the biggest FA signing for us this offseason...

[vincecarter4pres]

Lee will get max or extremely close to it, book it.

Well, yes, but his maxis different than, say, LeBron's. I think he'll get 5 years, $80 mil or so, just like Boozer. I'm hoping he signs with us. I'm also hoping he isn't the biggest FA signing for us this offseason...

Yes, if I am not mistaken his max would be the same as Rudy Gay's, I was just mentioning it in response to those that still think he'll be available for around 5 years/50 to 60 mill.

[demens]

We really gotta sign him now. Our team is pretty damn terrible as it is. I actually think that other then a new coach, our roster is actually worst then last year (pending any pick ups). With no cap needed for Boozer, AK is probably not an option anymore. Hell, i'd welcome Yi back at this point. I know you all think you are ok with having another terrible season, but i'm pretty sure you'd all be singing a different tune after this team started off 0-20 again. Which not only would be a disaster for the team, it would also be the end of the Prokhorov mystique and his brand would turn to ****.

[deviljets7]

Lee will get max or extremely close to it, book it.

I'm not saying Lee can be stolen, but his leverage and ability to get paid is tied in pretty heavily to what LeBron decides to do.

If LeBron was to sign with the Knicks, any chance of getting s&t'd to a team over the cap is gone. At that point, his options would be quite limited.

[vincecarter4pres]

Lee will get max or extremely close to it, book it.

I'm not saying Lee can be stolen, but his leverage and ability to get paid is tied in pretty heavily to what LeBron decides to do.

If LeBron was to sign with the Knicks, any chance of getting s&t'd to a team over the cap is gone. At that point, his options would be quite limited.

Very true, guess I didn't think that one through all the way...

[Hansel]

This is a top 4 team in the East, maybe top 3

Lopez-Favors
Lee-Favors
RJ-James
Williams-Lee
Harris-Felton

That is a solid 9 man rotation with the worst starter being Richard Jefferson and 3 excellent bench players in Favors-Lee-Felton

This team could come out of the East.
Screw the lottery.

.

This type of thinking is pretty much a worst-case scenario for me. That team defines mediocrity. To think it could come out of the East is ridiculous. In the NBA there is literally NO point in being mediocre. It is a league of extremes. You either need to be really, really good or really, really bad. Anywhere in the middle and you're just wasting your time. To me there are only two options assuming we miss out on LeBron.

1) Rekindle the Chris Paul talks. Yeah, his knees are worrisome.. I don't really care. I think it would be insane to shy away from Paul due to his knee. Even if he never returns to his 07-08 and 08-09 form he'd still be an incredible building block at point guard. He's a true superstar. I like Favors quite a bit but I wouldn't hesitate to on the Favors for Paul + bad contract framework. Would I take Emeka? I would. The contract is just horrid but if it is the difference between getting Paul or not getting Paul then I take the contract. His contract actually masks the fact that he is an above average player. Not great by any means - and not even close to worth that contract - but he's easily a starting big man with the potential to be in an 18 PER range. Again, I'm not advocating dealing for Emeka in a straight up scenario. I just wouldn't let his contract keep me from dealing for Paul.

I would then talk to the Pacers assuming there was any truth to the Harris/Granger rumors. I don't love Granger but Harris would become expendable and we would need a wing. Paul/Twill/Granger/Emeka/Brook is a legitimate core that can compete now and in the future.

2) Continue the complete rebuild. Gain assets while maintaining cap space for next off-season and tanking another year. Draft in the top-5 again next season.

I'm completely in favor of the first scenario.

[demens]

What is this talk about no point to be mediocre. You guys do realize you're Nets fans right? Preferring to suck terribly over being mediocre is some self hatred BS. Most teams in the league are mediocre, if there was no point to it, NBA would have maybe 5 or so teams and call it a day.

[Hansel]

What is this talk about no point to be mediocre. You guys do realize you're Nets fans right? Preferring to suck terribly over being mediocre is some self hatred BS. Most teams in the league are mediocre, if there was no point to it, NBA would have maybe 5 or so teams and call it a day.

That logic is completely awful. Just because most teams in the NBA are mediocre doesn't mean it is acceptable to being mediocre. The overall goal is to win the championship or at the very least be a legitimate contender for it. That doesn't happen by signing Kyle Korver, Travis Outlaw, Tyrus Thomas, and calling it a summer. Winning 37 games is pointless.

[demens]

That logic is completely awful. Just because most teams in the NBA are mediocre doesn't mean it is acceptable to being mediocre. The overall goal is to win the championship or at the very least be a legitimate contender for it. That doesn't happen by signing Kyle Korver, Travis Outlaw, Tyrus Thomas, and calling it a summer. Winning 37 games is pointless.

No, winning 12 games and being miserable is pointless. Collecting young and improving talent might win you 37 games, but it isn't pointless.

I dont remember the exact number, but someone on the radio was talking about how 5% of NBAs teams won like 90% of the championship (Lakers, Celts, etc). Obviously every team should strive for a championship but only 1 team can win it, that doesn't mean that the best alternative is to suck beyond belief. 1 12 win season is enough for me.

[Hansel]

That logic is completely awful. Just because most teams in the NBA are mediocre doesn't mean it is acceptable to being mediocre. The overall goal is to win the championship or at the very least be a legitimate contender for it. That doesn't happen by signing Kyle Korver, Travis Outlaw, Tyrus Thomas, and calling it a summer. Winning 37 games is pointless.

No, winning 12 games and being miserable is pointless. Collecting young and improving talent might win you 37 games, but it isn't pointless.

I dont remember the exact number, but someone on the radio was talking about how 5% of NBAs teams won like 90% of the championship (Lakers, Celts, etc). Obviously every team should strive for a championship but only 1 team can win it, that doesn't mean that the best alternative is to suck beyond belief. 1 12 win season is enough for me.

Um, no. Winning 12 games and being miserable isn't pointless at all. What? The draft? At least completely sucking gives you the best % chance of landing the top pick and (presumably) a franchise-changer. 37 wins is no man's land in the NBA and there is NO point in being in no man's land.

Yeah, only one team can win it. How many can win 50 games though? 55? Have a legitimate claim to contending for the title? Show me a team who got to that point by stockpiling **** depth and pretending that 37 wins was a good alternative to sucking. The Magic were horrendous before they became great. The Celtics drafted 5th in the draft the summer before dealing all of their assets for stud vets. The Cavs had to land LeBron. The Heat had to draft DWade. The Lakers were always great and always had Kobe. Even the Hawks had to suck for who knows how long before they got it together with their youth. Clearing all of this cap room to sign Thomas, Korver, and Outlaw to longterm deals is insane.

[demens]

Um, no. Winning 12 games and being miserable isn't pointless at all. What? The draft? At least completely sucking gives you the best % chance of landing the top pick and (presumably) a franchise-changer. 37 wins is no man's land in the NBA and there is NO point in being in no man's land.

Yeah, only one team can win it. How many can win 50 games though? 55? Have a legitimate claim to contending for the title? Show me a team who got to that point by stockpiling **** depth and pretending that 37 wins was a good alternative to sucking. The Magic were horrendous before they became great. The Celtics drafted 5th in the draft the summer before dealing all of their assets for stud vets. The Cavs had to land LeBron. The Heat had to draft DWade. The Lakers were always great and always had Kobe. Even the Hawks had to suck for who knows how long before they got it together with their youth. Clearing all of this cap room to sign Thomas, Korver, and Outlaw to longterm deals is insane.

How about Portland and OKC, coincidentally 2 teams with top GMs in the league.

How did winning 12 games and having the best % chance work out for the Nets? Not so great so far?

Let me get this straight, you think a team can just suck and suck and suck and then 1 day it'll just miraculously turn into a championship contender? No, its a process, like Avery said. 1st you gotta win 13 games, then win 25. then 37. And keep building your team to become that contender. Magic didn't become a contender after getting Dwight, guess how many games they won...ehh...36, ohh my god the horror of mediocrity. The Bulls didn't become contenders with Rose, and from what i remember they were not the worst team in the league the year before. Lebron won how many....ohhhh the pain of mediocrity, 35 games.

You can't have a plan to suck forever and hope you'll win a #1 pick and then hope some more that the pick will be a stud. You can not hope for some home run trade out of the blue for some un happy superstar. We have young talent, we have cap, i'm more then ok with adding more talent and letting them grow even if that means being mediocre.

[Hansel]

How about Portland and OKC, coincidentally 2 teams with top GMs in the league.

What? Two teams with incredible youth and franchise wings? That's exactly what I WANT the Nets to do. That's not what you're arguing for at all. The Thunder picked up Jeff Green (5th pick), then the next year KD (2nd), and then the next year Russ Westbrook (4th). Haha what a bad example you just gave. They didn't win 37 games and somehow come up with these stud pieces. They did an awesome job adding the fringe guys late in the first round but overall their blueprint was INCREDIBLY simple: draft well and draft high in the lottery. That's exactly what I want.

Portland had the NUMBER 1 pick to get Oden. No, it didn't work out because of injuries but their plan was to build through the draft. Aldridge? Roy? Bayless? They were in the lottery all the time before they got good. I agree with you that it is no coincidence that these teams had 2 of the top GMs in the league. That's exactly why they tried to build through the draft and minimize crappy moves that hurt your draft positioning while doing nothing to further your ability to realistically compete.

Referencing Portland and OKC is in line with my argument, not yours.

How did winning 12 games and having the best % chance work out for the Nets? Not so great so far?

Who can say? It got them Favors who from all reports could be a franchise big man and a defensive monster. I'm not going to let two summer league games alter my perception of him. You only get a 25% chance of landing the number 1 pick but we had a 100% chance of landing a top 4 pick... the same place where Westbrook and Durant were drafted in your aforementioned OKC example. There are no guarantees in the lottery but it without a doubt gives a better chance of developing a winner than signing guys like Outlaw and Felton and slashing your future ceiling in half.

Let me get this straight, you think a team can just suck and suck and suck and then 1 day it'll just miraculously turn into a championship contender? No, its a process, like Avery said. 1st you gotta win 13 games, then win 25. then 37. And keep building your team to become that contender. Magic didn't become a contender after getting Dwight, guess how many games they won...ehh...36, ohh my god the horror of mediocrity. The Bulls didn't become contenders with Rose, and from what i remember they were not the worst team in the league the year before. Lebron won how many....ohhhh the pain of mediocrity, 35 games.

You're completely missing the point of mediocrity. I'm not saying you go from winning 12 games to 60 games. If you BUILD your team and it slowly goes from 12, to 25, to 37, to 50... that's OK. That's exactly what I want. You don't do that by wasting cap space on crappy players like Outlaw to try and accelerate the process. If you go from 13, to 25, to 37 as your players DEVELOP (as what happened with the teams you referenced) then that is the exact right track. But you're kidding yourself if you think adding Outlaw, Korver, and Thomas does anything other than speed up the process to getting to 37 wins and then putting you in that range permanently (barring ridiculous development from Favors).

You can't have a plan to suck forever and hope you'll win a #1 pick and then hope some more that the pick will be a stud. You can not hope for some home run trade out of the blue for some un happy superstar. We have young talent, we have cap, i'm more then ok with adding more talent and letting them grow even if that means being mediocre.

I don't want to suck forever. I want to see the rebuild out and not sign borderline crappy depth pieces that doesn't further winning in the slightest.