Eff Deron Williams

[Universe]

The Wallace trade made no sense from the moment it happened and it failed within the span of 6 months which resulted into the Celtics trade that backed us into a corner to get rid of a deadweight contract. We gave up one lottery pick for Wallace and another to get rid of his contract. It was an awful trade and there is no way to get around that even in a devil's advocate point of view.

Problem with that argument is we didn't have to give up anything for him. Warriors were fine with David Lee's deadweight contract and he eventually was traded for that same guy we "had" to give a pick up for without including any draft picks.

[Net Sentence]

The Wallace trade made no sense from the moment it happened and it failed within the span of 6 months which resulted into the Celtics trade that backed us into a corner to get rid of a deadweight contract. We gave up one lottery pick for Wallace and another to get rid of his contract. It was an awful trade and there is no way to get around that even in a devil's advocate point of view.

The Celtics took James Young with the #17 pick. That isn't a Lottery pick. FYI

[Net Sentence]

People need to differentiate between where the 1st round picks are selected.

This isnt the NFL where the last pick of the first is still likely to be a very good player.

There is a huge difference between a top 3 pick, a top 10 pick and a non lottery pick. You have different expectations based on these differences.

Top 3 picks are suppose to be franchise guys. Not every draft has 3 franchise level guys but for the most part you get a significant player if you pick in the top 3.

Picks 4-10: All you hope for out of players picked in this range is someone who can be a long term starter by year 2. You get lucky sometimes and get a superstar late but for the most part a solid starter is more realistic.

After the first 10 or so picks you are just hoping to draft someone who can be part of a 9 man rotation.

So far all we have given Boston is the #17 pick. Everyone is getting bent out of shape over this year's pick because we have the 3rd worst record yet we are only 4.5 games out of the #12 pick.

[jbeachboy]

as long as celtics dont get ben simmons although ingram and some others look decent.

[Paradise]

The Wallace trade made no sense from the moment it happened and it failed within the span of 6 months which resulted into the Celtics trade that backed us into a corner to get rid of a deadweight contract. We gave up one lottery pick for Wallace and another to get rid of his contract. It was an awful trade and there is no way to get around that even in a devil's advocate point of view.

Problem with that argument is we didn't have to give up anything for him. Warriors were fine with David Lee's deadweight contract and he eventually was traded for that same guy we "had" to give a pick up for without including any draft picks.

The Warriors were swapping expiring deals. The Celtics were taking on 3 Years of a deadweight contract and declining player. Big difference.

King also confirmed this:

King also seemed to admit that one of the first rounders had been dealt to ship out Gerald Wallace, whose career has nose-dived since he signed a $40 million deal in 2012.

"I think in giving up what we did, it was a combination of moving a contract with one pick, get Paul So it was a combination. I don't think you look at one player and say 'That's why you give it up.' So, it's more of a combination of things."

We gave up two quality picks for a player that barely helped us and was out the door within one season. A fireable offense.

[therealbig3]

Stating the Celtics trade, which included two main pieces above 35-years-old, was only bad in hindsight isn't a great argument. None of the players we acquired were even under contract when the draft picks traded took affect. That's like trading a 2017 and 2018 pick for Tim Duncan.

We were going all in at that point, because we pretty much already did even before that trade. That was the risk we were taking, because it was clear that we were good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to truly contend. We needed to improve somehow, and Pierce/Garnett were available. We weren't expecting to be in the position we are now, because we were supposed to be a lot better. That was the thinking behind the trade, and yeah, it was obvious that we were trading in the future for the present, because that was the position we were in already (we had already traded our 2012 lotto pick, and swapped the rights of our 2014 and 2015 picks with Atlanta). It was a trade that was universally supported. But hey, if you hated the trade when it happened, because you would rather have had those picks, more power to you. But I still don't see how it's worse than the Wallace trade, since there was no rationale to that one.

Problem with that argument is we didn't have to give up anything for him. Warriors were fine with David Lee's deadweight contract and he eventually was traded for that same guy we "had" to give a pick up for without including any draft picks.

Wallace was an expiring contract by the time he was traded. Totally different situation than when we traded him.

Also, GS did give up pick swap rights as the cost of trading him.

So far all we have given Boston is the #17 pick. Everyone is getting bent out of shape over this year's pick because we have the 3rd worst record yet we are only 4.5 games out of the #12 pick.

Isn't this a reason why the Celtics trade isn't as bad as you're making it out?

[Net Sentence]

So far all we have given Boston is the #17 pick. Everyone is getting bent out of shape over this year's pick because we have the 3rd worst record yet we are only 4.5 games out of the #12 pick.

Isn't this a reason why the Celtics trade isn't as bad as you're making it out?

I cant differentiate between a bad trade and all time bad trade. I dont think either the Wallace or Boston trade were all time bad trades. Everything that has gone wrong since we moved to Brooklyn falls on the narrow shoulders of Deron Williams.

[therealbig3]

So far all we have given Boston is the #17 pick. Everyone is getting bent out of shape over this year's pick because we have the 3rd worst record yet we are only 4.5 games out of the #12 pick.

Isn't this a reason why the Celtics trade isn't as bad as you're making it out?

I cant differentiate between a bad trade and all time bad trade. I dont think either the Wallace or Boston trade were all time bad trades. Everything that has gone wrong since we moved to Brooklyn falls on the narrow shoulders of Deron Williams.

I disagree, I think the Wallace trade really was that bad, but I can at least agree with your last point: by far the biggest reason none of this worked out was Deron being a bum.

[Net Sentence]

The Wallace trade made no sense from the moment it happened and it failed within the span of 6 months which resulted into the Celtics trade that backed us into a corner to get rid of a deadweight contract. We gave up one lottery pick for Wallace and another to get rid of his contract. It was an awful trade and there is no way to get around that even in a devil's advocate point of view.

Problem with that argument is we didn't have to give up anything for him. Warriors were fine with David Lee's deadweight contract and he eventually was traded for that same guy we "had" to give a pick up for without including any draft picks.

The Warriors were swapping expiring deals. The Celtics were taking on 3 Years of a deadweight contract and declining player. Big difference.

King also confirmed this:

King also seemed to admit that one of the first rounders had been dealt to ship out Gerald Wallace, whose career has nose-dived since he signed a $40 million deal in 2012.

"I think in giving up what we did, it was a combination of moving a contract with one pick, get Paul So it was a combination. I don't think you look at one player and say 'That's why you give it up.' So, it's more of a combination of things."

We gave up two quality picks for a player that barely helped us and was out the door within one season. A fireable offense.

This is the thing I have the biggest problem with. Wallace had a 2.5 DWS, a 2.6 DBPM and played 2076 minutes in the season we won 49 games. That was by far the best defensive season we had by a player since we moved to Brooklyn. He was a big time contributor to the success of that team. This isnt fantasy sports, good defense is equal to if not more important than offense. He played his best in the playoffs that year also.

[Universe]

The Wallace trade made no sense from the moment it happened and it failed within the span of 6 months which resulted into the Celtics trade that backed us into a corner to get rid of a deadweight contract. We gave up one lottery pick for Wallace and another to get rid of his contract. It was an awful trade and there is no way to get around that even in a devil's advocate point of view.

Problem with that argument is we didn't have to give up anything for him. Warriors were fine with David Lee's deadweight contract and he eventually was traded for that same guy we "had" to give a pick up for without including any draft picks.

The Warriors were swapping expiring deals. The Celtics were taking on 3 Years of a deadweight contract and declining player. Big difference.

King also confirmed this:

King also seemed to admit that one of the first rounders had been dealt to ship out Gerald Wallace, whose career has nose-dived since he signed a $40 million deal in 2012.

"I think in giving up what we did, it was a combination of moving a contract with one pick, get Paul So it was a combination. I don't think you look at one player and say 'That's why you give it up.' So, it's more of a combination of things."

We gave up two quality picks for a player that barely helped us and was out the door within one season. A fireable offense.

Not a big difference considering we never had to trade Wallace.

[Universe]

Isn't this a reason why the Celtics trade isn't as bad as you're making it out?

I cant differentiate between a bad trade and all time bad trade. I dont think either the Wallace or Boston trade were all time bad trades. Everything that has gone wrong since we moved to Brooklyn falls on the narrow shoulders of Deron Williams.

I disagree, I think the Wallace trade really was that bad, but I can at least agree with your last point: by far the biggest reason none of this worked out was Deron being a bum.

I personally think the Deron trade was worse off than both trades combined, but it's easy to see why they pulled the trigger. That same trigger was pulled to make the Wallace deal to counter the Williams trade which also made sense. Nets had to go into a new market with either Deron or Anthony Davis. Wallace trade made one of those possible, while the other one was just bad luck per usual.

[Paradise]

Not a big difference considering we never had to trade Wallace.

We had to improve offensively around Brook/Deron and Joe. We had no cap room to address needs while Wallace was putting up similar stats that Joe is currently putting up which confirmed a steep decline was going to happen over the course of his contract which did happen. We didn't have to but we had no other choice. Billy put us in a poor position from the get go with Wallace.

Had we kept him, our cap situation would've been a massively dark tunnel but we would've kept our picks or probably used those picks to send Deron somewhere else. Think of it like this: Deron disappointing, getting bought out, Brook breaking his foot, Kidd leaving, all would've happened with Wallace still here being a dead weight contract. Difference is, we don't get Thaddeus, we don't get Rondae, etc. Our situation would've been not good regardless. Sure, we could've been able to tank and draft talent but the atmosphere would've been very cancerous with multiple long term contracts, disgruntled players and injury prone players.

[therealbig3]

Meh, with regards to Wallace, I don't think he was that much of a difference maker. He was a role player, certainly not worth what we traded for him or paid for him. He also had some really clear flaws (most noticeably, his atrocious offense), that got exposed against the better teams. Defensively, he was solid, but he also got lit up routinely by opposing wings that season. Melo destroyed him, old man Kobe famously posterized him, he couldn't do anything against LeBron...Joe Johnson did a better job at containing wings, from what I remember that season. Wallace was a good team defender, but he left a lot to be desired in terms of man defense, and his offense was really bad. He couldn't convert layups, he couldn't shoot, and he would lazily spot up anyway instead of cutting to the hoop.

BTW, KG played about half as many regular season minutes for us, but I think his defense was FAR better for us than Wallace's was. If I had to pick the best defender we've had since the move to Brooklyn, it would be KG.

[Net Sentence]

Meh, with regards to Wallace, I don't think he was that much of a difference maker. He was a role player, certainly not worth what we traded for him or paid for him. He also had some really clear flaws (most noticeably, his atrocious offense), that got exposed against the better teams. Defensively, he was solid, but he also got lit up routinely by opposing wings that season. Melo destroyed him, old man Kobe famously posterized him, he couldn't do anything against LeBron...Joe Johnson did a better job at containing wings, from what I remember that season. Wallace was a good team defender, but he left a lot to be desired in terms of man defense, and his offense was really bad. He couldn't convert layups, he couldn't shoot, and he would lazily spot up anyway instead of cutting to the hoop.

BTW, KG played about half as many regular season minutes for us, but I think his defense was FAR better for us than Wallace's was. If I had to pick the best defender we've had since the move to Brooklyn, it would be KG.

Good offense beats good defense. There is no shame in not being able to stop top 10 scorers. All you can do is make it as difficult as possible for them.

I would take winning ugly over a bunch of moral victories. We won the most games in Brooklyn with Reggie Evans and Crash as starters.

And am I suppose to take you serious about KG? KG was a backup who took a game off a week. Your best ability is availability in sports. KG barely played 20 minutes a game. Wallace played 30 minutes a game. It's not even debatable who contributed more.

[therealbig3]

Meh, with regards to Wallace, I don't think he was that much of a difference maker. He was a role player, certainly not worth what we traded for him or paid for him. He also had some really clear flaws (most noticeably, his atrocious offense), that got exposed against the better teams. Defensively, he was solid, but he also got lit up routinely by opposing wings that season. Melo destroyed him, old man Kobe famously posterized him, he couldn't do anything against LeBron...Joe Johnson did a better job at containing wings, from what I remember that season. Wallace was a good team defender, but he left a lot to be desired in terms of man defense, and his offense was really bad. He couldn't convert layups, he couldn't shoot, and he would lazily spot up anyway instead of cutting to the hoop.

BTW, KG played about half as many regular season minutes for us, but I think his defense was FAR better for us than Wallace's was. If I had to pick the best defender we've had since the move to Brooklyn, it would be KG.

Good offense beats good defense. There is no shame in not being able to stop top 10 scorers. All you can do is make it as difficult as possible for them.

I would take winning ugly over a bunch of moral victories. We won the most games in Brooklyn with Reggie Evans and Crash as starters.

And am I suppose to take you serious about KG? KG was a backup who took a game off a week. Your best ability is availability in sports. KG barely played 20 minutes a game. Wallace played 30 minutes a game. It's not even debatable who contributed more.

But that's the thing, he didn't make it tough on them, they lit him up. Joe Johnson at least slowed them down a little.

We won the most games with Evans and Crash, but correlation does not imply causation. We weren't doing anything until Deron Williams turned his season around. The reason we won that many games in 2013 was because of how good he was especially after the ASB, but really when the New Year started, when he started to play like an AS again. And that was the only season when we had two legit stars on the team (Brook and Deron), including one legit superstar (Deron).

Pierce and KG were clear improvements to Wallace and Evans, but Deron played way worse compared to his prior season, and we lost Brook for the season early on. And unlike the 2013 team, we were actually able to get past the 1st round (against a better team than the one that beat us in 2013), and that was in large part due to KG and Pierce not being complete offensive liabilities (and better defenders too).

As for KG vs Wallace, KG played less minutes, but he was a much better defender in the minutes he played. He was a huge reason why we won against Toronto. We were shutting them down whenever he was on the court. If you value the minutes that Wallace gave us, that's fine, but in terms of who played better defense, it was KG.

[isekii]

I wouldn't mind the rehiring or Rod Thorn. (he's somewhere in the NBA front office no?)
He was a great Fleecer of other franchises.

Drafting record sucked though with him and Ed Stanfaski during his Nets tenure.

[Universe]

Not a big difference considering we never had to trade Wallace.

We had to improve offensively around Brook/Deron and Joe. We had no cap room to address needs while Wallace was putting up similar stats that Joe is currently putting up which confirmed a steep decline was going to happen over the course of his contract which did happen. We didn't have to but we had no other choice. Billy put us in a poor position from the get go with Wallace.

Had we kept him, our cap situation would've been a massively dark tunnel but we would've kept our picks or probably used those picks to send Deron somewhere else. Think of it like this: Deron disappointing, getting bought out, Brook breaking his foot, Kidd leaving, all would've happened with Wallace still here being a dead weight contract. Difference is, we don't get Thaddeus, we don't get Rondae, etc. Our situation would've been not good regardless. Sure, we could've been able to tank and draft talent but the atmosphere would've been very cancerous with multiple long term contracts, disgruntled players and injury prone players.

We had to improve offensively so the smart solution was to send a first round pick to our rivals for a 36-year-old small forward? And you choose to use the words steep decline when describing Wallace right after? C'mon dude. And you are right about us not getting Rondae. We would have probably picked up Grant, Rozier or Delon Wright -- which wouldn't have been too bad either.