The Official Should We Have Signed Thad Thread

[Prokorov]

We're a better defensive team the ball should move easier now think young Memphis with Thadeus Young instead of Zach Randolph.

I dont see how we are better/much better defensively. RHJ is good off the bench for D but we did lose anderson. Larkin might be better defensively the williams, but not by a large amount. Bogs/Thad/Lopez still have their defensive issues.

how are we anything like memphis?

Tony Allen is first team ALL-NBA defender. Gasol is a year removed from Defensive player of the year. Lee is a plus defender. Conley is one of the better defensive point gaurds.

Comparing thad young to zack randolf seems odd, other then both being lefty they are nothing alike.

Randolf score more, on better efficiency.

Randolf is an elite rebounder, Thad is a poor rebounder

Randolf gets to the FT line, thad doesnt

Randolf is a half couirt player, thad is more an open court player

we are nothing like memphis.

He'll also be a better play maker. Except with Brook Deron's passes were always off guys had to create their own shot.

Memphis-lite both Hollins styled rosters.

Memphis is an excellent defensive team filled with excellent defesive players

we are a mediocure to poor defensive team filled with mediocure to poor defenders

i see no similarities at all.

Jack is nothing like conley

Bogs i guess is similar to Lee in some ways

JJ is nothing like Allen

Thad is nothing like Randolf

Brook is nothing like gasol

really, where is the comparison? just because hollins coached them doesnt make the teams similar.

Memphis' players are MUCH better on top of all of that.

this is a really silly argument.

[Prokorov]

Seriously, Trader_Joe wrapped it up excellently and the vote shows an overwhelming majority that resigning Thad was a good at least solid move.

Seeing Prokorov still quoting everyone, disagreeing with everyone and forcing his opinion on everyone because Thad COULD get injured and therefore not be tradeable while LBJ and Durant COULD consider not only joining forces but also choosing the Nets is kind of annoying to me. Not disrespecting other opinions. But there has to be one point where you simply let it go and calm down. Especially as he has already signed a new contract.

Didnt you know, this is Prokorov's mailbag. He is the only one who voted no and he is the only one who is still arguing this.

People respond and quote me. i respond to them and their questions. thats how a messageboard works.

if you want a bunch of people blindly sucking off every nets player, head back to netsdaily

[Net Sentence]

Seriously, Trader_Joe wrapped it up excellently and the vote shows an overwhelming majority that resigning Thad was a good at least solid move.

Seeing Prokorov still quoting everyone, disagreeing with everyone and forcing his opinion on everyone because Thad COULD get injured and therefore not be tradeable while LBJ and Durant COULD consider not only joining forces but also choosing the Nets is kind of annoying to me. Not disrespecting other opinions. But there has to be one point where you simply let it go and calm down. Especially as he has already signed a new contract.

Didnt you know, this is Prokorov's mailbag. He is the only one who voted no and he is the only one who is still arguing this.

People respond and quote me. i respond to them and their questions. thats how a messageboard works.

if you want a bunch of people blindly sucking off every nets player, head back to netsdaily

You have derailed at least 4 other threads with this nonsense. After a while you have to figure it's not us keeping this alive, it's you.

Thad is signed, sealed and delivered. Move along already

[Paradise]

I still think the entire debate is ovethinking. We stay afloat with a competent and productive PF and can move him via trade if a much better option is interested in joining.

what if we have the chance to sign 2 big targets, but cant trade thad because he got injured?

sure, he probably doesnt get injured, but its a possibility and our luck is horrible

When has that ever happend? We were on the verge of dealing Brook for Dwight during the summer of his foot rehab.

[Keith Van Horn]

*Make it go away*

[jbeachboy]

i recall somewhere either hollins or brook saying how thad helped brook lopez play during second half of the season

[DeRoma]

Yes the right move is to sign him. There should be no argument towards this. People thinking we are capable of signing 2 big name players next season is simply stupid. No one will come here with the reputation we have created around the league with all the drama and bs. The best thing to do is start a new culture and show everyone in the league that the team can win games with little bits of flexibility. This is just plain and simple logic. There is really no arguments.

Whoever thinks Thad won't help in win/loss column is also an idiot. He is a good player that is capable of playing great and making good impact in the right situation. He is one of those rare players that fits very well with brook. And if you don't think he is and using less than half a season to back up your argument you are also an idiot. You will see this season once hollins puts up the right scheme and philosophy once they are playing together.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MrDollarBills]

35-45 wins with Thad
20-25 without him.

I find it absolutely absurd that you think Thad Young is worth 15-20 wins. that is like Lebron level impact.

Jordan Hill sucks. He is a career backup and is the equivalent of T-Rob.

I never claimed Jordan hill was great, but he certainly doesnt suck, and really isnt much worse if worse at all then thad. 12/8 on similar efficiency and with better defense.

You keep trying to paint Young as this scrub azz player but his addition is what turned the season around last year. When you have two leadfoots in the starting lineup at Center and SF you need a player like Thad who can be both the ball handler or the finisher in transition. And he is doing that from the 4. You keep saying how he is a terrible defender but he is always among the league leaders in steals.

Thad didnt turn as around. Lopez and Bogs did.

getting alot of steals doesnt make you a good defender. preventing the opponent from scoring makes you a good defender. obviously steals are great. so are blocks. but a 2 or 3 steals dont make anywhere near the impact of allowing the opponent ot get easy scores. Thad is a below average to poor defender. there really is no way around that

Thad is a good shooter when he gets to play a secondary role offensively. He was forced into being a primary offensive player last year in Minny when Martin and Pekovic got hurt and his numbers suffered for it. His final season in Philly he was also forced into a primary offensive role and his shooting was down. The seasons he was allowed to play off good offensive players he has shot over 34% from 3. As we have seen from the Lopez/Pierce/Johnson/DWill/KG debacle, playing off the ball is a valuable skill. Guys who can score in secondary roles are valuable, especially on a team with ball dominate guys like Lopez, Johnson and Jack.

Thad was NOT a primary option in minnesota. In fact his role in minnesota was the same as it was here. in fact his usage here was acutally higher.

Thad usually has a huge advantage in mobility vs opposing PFs. His struggles in the playoffs can largely be attributed to him playing the better version of himself. Paul Milsap. Our depth was terrible at PF last season so we couldnt make an adjustment. Despite this we still took 2 games off the #1 seed.

and opposing PFs had a big advantage vs him on the other end because he isnt a good defender. and his offense really wasnt all that good outside of the stretch he was hitting 3s

I dont know why everyone is predicting doom and gloom for this year. We still play in the worst division in the worst confrence in basketball.

- Toronto got Carroll but lost their best scorer (Lou Will) and defender (Amir Johnson).
- NY has gotten a lot better but still dont look great.
- Philly is still Philly
- I have no idea what Boston is doing with their roster. Im not really worried about Boston

Most of the teams who actually improved in the East are in the Central division and they will cannibalize each others W-L.

Probably because we are starting a backup at PG, and low level starters at SG and PF. and our starting SF has been on a heavy decline and coming off a season of huge minutes turning 34 or 3 this year. we have 1 player who is top 15 at his position (lopez) we probably have one of the 3 worst shooting teams in the NBA.

It's a team sport Thad helped make the team better with his hustle and versatile game. He'll look even better this year surrounded by players that give a damn.

THIS.

[MrDollarBills]

Also one thing.

Let's not call this team "memphis lite".

We need to actually see them play first. We don't have a playmaker at the point. We need to see what Joe has left in the tank. Will Bojan take that step to become a reliable 15-18ppg scorer that can also space the floor? Can RHJ become all nba rookie first team? Can Brook stay healthy -AND- maintain his aggressiveness?

Lots of questions here. Lets just see what the team develops into first. As long as I see a culture shift from the IDGAF mentality of the D-Will era to the Accountability and play hard every night mentality that we have needed here badly, I will be okay win or lose.

I do think that Brook has bought in to Hollins' philosophy. Thad has as well. Joe is glad that Deron is gone, and he is a humble dude so maybe Joe just do what he is asked, I honestly think Joe will be treated like how Carter was treated and will be moved to a team that is contending and requests his services. As long as we get some young talent back or some picks, cool. Jack is a leader. RHJ definitely seems like a good kid. We have the foundation of at least a team that can be built from scratch where everyone is buying in. That to me is a good sign.

[Kaiser30]

I'm responding to others who have responded to me, giving my points and responding to their questions. im extremely calm, unlike some other posters who took to cursing, racial slurs, homophobic slurs, and name calling.

I take some offense to this post. if you disagree with something i said, let me know what it is an tell me why. dont generalize my post and dismiss it, that is kind of lazy and unfair.

Preferring not to sign thad is more then just because he could get injured. ive detailed my reason to pretty great extent. for you to boil it down to that is flat out wrong. and at all reflective of what ive stated. likewise, my suggested path for the nets was never "durant/lebron or bust" and ive stated several contingencies in the likely even we dont land those guys. yet you completely ignore those.

Again...

Not signing thad doesnt prevent us from doing any of the things others mention they want to do now that thad is here. if we dumped thad we could still develop the young guys, we could still look to go after westbrook down the road. we could still look to add guys to help in the interim. none of that comes off the table.

if we struck out on Lebron/durant there are another tier of players. if we struck out on those tiers, then we sign a Thad level player and end up in the same place anyway. To me, there isnt a huge risk and really no sacrafice to not signing thad. There is a huge potential upside on the small chance a couple superstars want to team up and play here. to me, that CHANCE is worth walking away from thad BECAUSE even if we swing and miss we still end up in basically the same place we are now having kept thad.

Keeping thad for 1 year and trying to trade im later to me seems like a bad idea. Why take on the risk/burden of having to move him when you can gaurantee that cap space by not signing him? I could undestand if we were like a 45-50 win team with thad, but that isnt the case.

if you DO believe we are a lock playoff 45+ win team with thad, then I can kind of see where you are coming from. i dont see us as a 45-50 win team.

But please, dont tell me to calm down when im responding with well thought out responses, addressing questions directly posed to me, giving reasons to why i think the way i do.... all the while there are curse ridden tirades all over the thread by other posters.

I was more or less referring to your 7 consecutive, initial posts where outside of Trader_Joe noone really asked you one question.

Although you might not remember it, we already had that dicussion about re-signing Thad even before he actually did re-sign. So we have basically exchanged all arguments, but neither will I nor will you change your opinion, so we should simply stop discussing about it, especially as he has re-signed now.

But as you have asked for it, I am going to remind you of my arguments and the points where we are not on the same page:

- Draft picks

I can fully understand your approach of not caring about them as they simply are sunk costs and should have no influence on the Nets' decisions going forward.

But I do care about them on a personal level. I hate seeing the Celtics celebrating every move of the Nets and how it is going to make their record even worse. That this team is regarded as a bottom-3 team. A tanking team without having a draft pick.
I already hated how much attention the pick swap with the Hawks got by the media. A conference winning team nearly getting a lottery pick. Stuff like that is simply not helpful to the Nets' reputation. Also regarding attracting max free agents.

Moreover, giving the Celtics high draft picks actually does hurt the Nets ability to build a contender as Boston would become the team to beat in the East. Either by drafting franchise players or using the picks in trading for one of them.

I personally prefer to stay as competitive as possible while remaining flexibilie enough to make moves in free agency in order to be at least not a bottom 10 team. Normally, drafts have a huge dropoff after let's say the first 3 or 5 picks. Let the Celtics pick outside of that range with the Nets' picks and stay mediocre while not being able to add a true franchise player who is worth building around.

As long as the Nets don't have control of their picks, I'm against gutting the team. The Knicks gutted their team last season, were extremely bad and not even able to add more than C-level players in free agency. But at least they have a player with a high upside to build around in Kristaps Porzingis because of having control of their draft pick.

- Thad's value and replacing him

I do agree to the extent that Thad is not a player you should build a team around. He is in my opinion a solid fourth or fifth banana. But Billy signed him to a reasonable contract, so I see him as an asset. A solid player on a reasonable contract is always tradeable and has some value around the league. The Wolves gave up a first rounder for him not long ago. He has just turned 27. While I would have preferred to sign him to a shorter contract (e. g. 2 + 1 so he could hit the market again in 2017 when there are plenty of better free agents available), I'm not one bit mad about re-signing him. If it is necessary to move him, the Nets are always able to do that. You don't have to have cap space available while you are meeting free agents. The Heat were capped-out yet they were able to meet LaMarcus Aldridge.

Thad has not the influence of adding many wins to the team's record. But the middle of the East is in my opinion pretty close and evenly matched. Maybe the Nets are able to win let's say 3 to 4 more games with Thad than without him. That is not much of an improvement, but in the East it could be the difference in finishing 8th or 12th. The 8th seed is in my opinion that wide open as of now although further trades and especially injuries will affect the actual outcome.

The Nets could replace Thad in 2016, yes. But it still is a year from now away and I don't want to overpay players just for the sake of spending money and getting better. The Nets already had or still have overpaid players on their team and we all know that it hurts in trades. I would prefer to build a team with players on reasonable contracts who could even outplay their salary and become underpaid players and real assets. For instance like Paul Millsap after joining the Hawks.

- Free agents in 2016

I simply don't believe that the class of free agents in 2016 is that good and worth counting on. Outside of Durant, it lacks top class players on positions where the Nets have a need. So selling two big impact players the ability to team up is not even a true possible. A guy like Kevin Durant won't look at what the free agent class has to offer but what possible teams have to offer. You cannot build a better core than Wall+Beal in next year's free agency. Even the Warriors consider going after Durant and could always do a sign-and-trade or create enough cap room. And let's not forget that OKC's team is stacked. They now have a capable bench and possibly a better coach, so they could be really good next season making it harder for Durant to leave. In 2010, there were multiple top free agents available and teaming up surely a more enticing option.
There surely are some good players. I do like Conley and Batum, but Conley won't leave Memphis and both are nowhere near max type players. So the Nets could easily add them to the team if they are available at a reasonable price and choose the Nets.
In my opinion, free agency in 2017 is much more enticing because it is way deeper with top class players. But 2017 is still two seasons away and Thad's contract doesn't hurt the ability to sign two top players in 2017 as his salary has even less impact in 2017 when the cap increases again and his trade value could be even higher as he will be an expiring contract (I assume he will opt out after his third year).



So that's it. I don't expect you to agree to it but please let us put an end to this. Thad has already re-signed and will be here for the next years. This discussion has to stop once because we cannot keep it up for the length of his contract.

Please excuse my previous post. I was without question too harsh.
I do appreciate your opinion and your dedication in discussing about the Nets because it obviously shows that you CARE about the team which is always a good sign. But please let's move on and discuss about other stuff.

[Zachbretton]

I still think the entire debate is ovethinking. We stay afloat with a competent and productive PF and can move him via trade if a much better option is interested in joining.

Exactly my thought. I want us to always try and put the best product on the floor. If a better option comes along we can always move the pieces needed. Look at the Spurs this offseason, they didn't HAVE the space for LMA, they MADE it. Why can't we do the same? Thad is a pretty solid player and very movable if need be , same as many of our other contracts now


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MrDollarBills]

I still think the entire debate is ovethinking. We stay afloat with a competent and productive PF and can move him via trade if a much better option is interested in joining.

Exactly my thought. I want us to always try and put the best product on the floor. If a better option comes along we can always move the pieces needed. Look at the Spurs this offseason, they didn't HAVE the space for LMA, they MADE it. Why can't we do the same? Thad is a pretty solid player and very movable if need be , same as many of our other contracts now


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Bingo. The Spurs making space for LMA pretty much destroys this entire argument. Thad isn't preventing the Nets from doing anything. Thad is here to help win games and to help the culture change. He has a great attitude, he brings tools to the floor, and he plays hard. Money well spent.

[Prokorov]

I was more or less referring to your 7 consecutive, initial posts where outside of Trader_Joe noone really asked you one question.

Although you might not remember it, we already had that dicussion about re-signing Thad even before he actually did re-sign. So we have basically exchanged all arguments, but neither will I nor will you change your opinion, so we should simply stop discussing about it, especially as he has re-signed now.

If you dont want to discuss then just dont click on the link that says "should we have signed thad". If the topic no longer interestes you, then you dont have to discuss it. there are others here that clearly still want to chime in on it, or debate the others view point. its a messageboard, thats what its for... and its the summer, not much else going on.

- Draft picks

I can fully understand your approach of not caring about them as they simply are sunk costs and should have no influence on the Nets' decisions going forward.

But I do care about them on a personal level. I hate seeing the Celtics celebrating every move of the Nets and how it is going to make their record even worse. That this team is regarded as a bottom-3 team. A tanking team without having a draft pick.
I already hated how much attention the pick swap with the Hawks got by the media. A conference winning team nearly getting a lottery pick. Stuff like that is simply not helpful to the Nets' reputation. Also regarding attracting max free agents.

I totally understand your feelings here, and i think we all kind of feel the same. I just dont think we should let that effect how we build the team. i think that improving the nets longterm should be the goal. and while it sucks boston fans are going to mock us if they have our lotto pick, you cant let that effect business

Moreover, giving the Celtics high draft picks actually does hurt the Nets ability to build a contender as Boston would become the team to beat in the East. Either by drafting franchise players or using the picks in trading for one of them.

I personally prefer to stay as competitive as possible while remaining flexibilie enough to make moves in free agency in order to be at least not a bottom 10 team. Normally, drafts have a huge dropoff after let's say the first 3 or 5 picks. Let the Celtics pick outside of that range with the Nets' picks and stay mediocre while not being able to add a true franchise player who is worth building around.

I agree. the difference is my view of being competitive and flexible is having enough cap room for 2 max contracts and not have thad here, you are more weight on the other side, with being as competitive with thad and being happy with 1 max contract plus some extra cash.

As long as the Nets don't have control of their picks, I'm against gutting the team. The Knicks gutted their team last season, were extremely bad and not even able to add more than C-level players in free agency. But at least they have a player with a high upside to build around in Kristaps Porzingis because of having control of their draft pick.

Well, "gutting the team" has kind of already happened. the only step id take further is getting rid of thad. the rest is the same. im against trading joe, im perfectly happy with brook here, and everyone else is basically a young guy on a minimum deal. So its not like "gutting" the team really would change much. its just thad or no thad.

- Thad's value and replacing him

I do agree to the extent that Thad is not a player you should build a team around. He is in my opinion a solid fourth or fifth banana. But Billy signed him to a reasonable contract, so I see him as an asset. A solid player on a reasonable contract is always tradeable and has some value around the league. The Wolves gave up a first rounder for him not long ago. He has just turned 27. While I would have preferred to sign him to a shorter contract (e. g. 2 + 1 so he could hit the market again in 2017 when there are plenty of better free agents available), I'm not one bit mad about re-signing him. If it is necessary to move him, the Nets are always able to do that. You don't have to have cap space available while you are meeting free agents. The Heat were capped-out yet they were able to meet LaMarcus Aldridge.

Here is where we disagree. It is easy to assume that 'we cant trade him later'. my response to that is:

1) why sign a guy you are going to want to trade in 12 months when you can not sign him and not have to worry about it

2) i disagree it is such a lock we can trade him... or at least, trade him for pure cap space. What if he gets injured. i know its easy to brush that off, but injuries can occur. as far as value as well lets take your minnesota example. they traded a first for thad. then in less then a year all they could get for him was an expiring KG. that is a pretty steep drop in value. who knows what happens between now and next summer. Maybe Trob starts playing like a #5 overall pick and thad defense gets him in hollins doghouse. we have already seen brook there at times. im not saying any of those happen, im just saying there is risk he cant be traded for 100% cap space prior to the free agency period.

Thad has not the influence of adding many wins to the team's record. But the middle of the East is in my opinion pretty close and evenly matched. Maybe the Nets are able to win let's say 3 to 4 more games with Thad than without him. That is not much of an improvement, but in the East it could be the difference in finishing 8th or 12th. The 8th seed is in my opinion that wide open as of now although further trades and especially injuries will affect the actual outcome.

If you believe those 3-4 win coud be playoffs vs. no playoffs then i understand why you might want to keep him. for me, the difference in 3-4 wins doesnt put us in the playoff hunt. if it did, im still not sure id change my mind, as for me its all about the future and less about this year, but i can see why others would feel differently.

The Nets could replace Thad in 2016, yes. But it still is a year from now away and I don't want to overpay players just for the sake of spending money and getting better. The Nets already had or still have overpaid players on their team and we all know that it hurts in trades. I would prefer to build a team with players on reasonable contracts who could even outplay their salary and become underpaid players and real assets. For instance like Paul Millsap after joining the Hawks.

there is a difference between overpaid and cap killing. i dont see us giving someone like nene or ryan anderson a joe johnson like contract. those guys, even on an overpay, arent cap killers. and who is to say we cant get ryan anderson or someone like that on a reasonable contract? either way, id rather overpay a bit if it means the opportunity to chase a star. you dont get many opportunities to do that. like once every 5-10 years. when the opportunity arises even if small i think you need to make sure you can go after it.

- Free agents in 2016

I simply don't believe that the class of free agents in 2016 is that good and worth counting on. Outside of Durant, it lacks top class players on positions where the Nets have a need. So selling two big impact players the ability to team up is not even a true possible. A guy like Kevin Durant won't look at what the free agent class has to offer but what possible teams have to offer. You cannot build a better core than Wall+Beal in next year's free agency. Even the Warriors consider going after Durant and could always do a sign-and-trade or create enough cap room. And let's not forget that OKC's team is stacked. They now have a capable bench and possibly a better coach, so they could be really good next season making it harder for Durant to leave. In 2010, there were multiple top free agents available and teaming up surely a more enticing option.

Lebron is also a free agent.

There surely are some good players. I do like Conley and Batum, but Conley won't leave Memphis and both are nowhere near max type players. So the Nets could easily add them to the team if they are available at a reasonable price and choose the Nets.
In my opinion, free agency in 2017 is much more enticing because it is way deeper with top class players. But 2017 is still two seasons away and Thad's contract doesn't hurt the ability to sign two top players in 2017 as his salary has even less impact in 2017 when the cap increases again and his trade value could be even higher as he will be an expiring contract (I assume he will opt out after his third year).

I'm not so stringent on "definitely will" or "definitely wont" type stuff. things change so much in a year. hell deandre was a mav guarantted and a week later now he is back with LA.

So that's it. I don't expect you to agree to it but please let us put an end to this. Thad has already re-signed and will be here for the next years. This discussion has to stop once because we cannot keep it up for the length of his contract.

Please excuse my previous post. I was without question too harsh.
I do appreciate your opinion and your dedication in discussing about the Nets because it obviously shows that you CARE about the team which is always a good sign. But please let's move on and discuss about other stuff.

Sounds good. and ive stopped discussing thad in other threads. if people want to discuss it here, ill continue to

[Prokorov]

I still think the entire debate is ovethinking. We stay afloat with a competent and productive PF and can move him via trade if a much better option is interested in joining.

Exactly my thought. I want us to always try and put the best product on the floor. If a better option comes along we can always move the pieces needed. Look at the Spurs this offseason, they didn't HAVE the space for LMA, they MADE it. Why can't we do the same? Thad is a pretty solid player and very movable if need be , same as many of our other contracts now


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Bingo. The Spurs making space for LMA pretty much destroys this entire argument. Thad isn't preventing the Nets from doing anything. Thad is here to help win games and to help the culture change. He has a great attitude, he brings tools to the floor, and he plays hard. Money well spent.

do you think the spurs could have moved splitter so easily if say, he tore his ACL... or had a DUI or off court issue like lawson? Sure, thad can probably be traded. but it is not as much a gaurantee as you make it seem. also, its not just trading thad, its trading him for pure cap space. is team that can offer pure cap space for thad going to want to help us? especially if its so we can sign a superstar?

[Trader_Joe]

Exactly my thought. I want us to always try and put the best product on the floor. If a better option comes along we can always move the pieces needed. Look at the Spurs this offseason, they didn't HAVE the space for LMA, they MADE it. Why can't we do the same? Thad is a pretty solid player and very movable if need be , same as many of our other contracts now


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Bingo. The Spurs making space for LMA pretty much destroys this entire argument. Thad isn't preventing the Nets from doing anything. Thad is here to help win games and to help the culture change. He has a great attitude, he brings tools to the floor, and he plays hard. Money well spent.

do you think the spurs could have moved splitter so easily if say, he tore his ACL... or had a DUI or off court issue like lawson? Sure, thad can probably be traded. but it is not as much a gaurantee as you make it seem. also, its not just trading thad, its trading him for pure cap space. is team that can offer pure cap space for thad going to want to help us? especially if its so we can sign a superstar?

Spurs cleared.space to.another contender so they could sign a star.
Us and Boston helped Cleveland sign LBJ.
Happens plenty.

[MrDollarBills]

If someone was willing to help out the Spurs, you don't think the Nets could find someone to take back a productive player on what will be a bargain deal? Cap space can also come in the form of contracts that have options/non guarantees by a certain date. You're trying to paint Thad as an albatross/hindrance when his contract isn't. The cap is also about to rise, I doubt getting space to acquire another max player will be an issue, if the opportunity presents itself.

Are you seriously under the belief that the Nets should have not resigned Thad because it jeopardizes your fantasy of enticing Durant and Lebron James to leave winning situations in order to team up to come here? Because going off of what you've said, and who would be available that is worth shelling out two 10 year plus max deals to, that's your angle.

[Starski]

Most know my thoughts on the topic but I'll lay em out one more time

1. Using this logic, should we have not signed Brook, Larkin or Ellington (the last two make more than the minimum and thus cut $3m into 2016 cap if they do not opt out)?
We signed 3 players that potentially chew up $26m or so in cap space.
Should we have let them all walk so that we have a better chance at these star players?

We also have Karasev and Bogdanovic that potentially but into 2016 cap space as well.
Should we dump those guys as well?
They are closer to $6m in 2016 cap space and make prevent us signing better players.

We could field the following team this season:

Jack / Boatright
JJ / Brown
RHJ / Q.Miller
Robinson / C.McC / Alexander
Reed / Bargnani

And next year have only RHJ and C.McC on the books and potentially Bargnani and Reed for the minimum.

Just not sure where this don't spend any money thing ends is the point here.


2. Where is the precedent for players wanting to come together and basing their decisions on others?
As far as I know, it's only happened once in Miami, where a already good team, already had a superstar on place and a mastermind behind it Riley. They also were able to resign role players on the cheap that they had already like Haslem, Miller, Jones IIRC. Either way these guys came together, with not much depth, and were arguably a disappointment compared to expectations and things ended unceremoniously with LBJ leaving. Perhaps these guys showed, stars teaming up doesn't work, rather stars joining a team does?

Otherwise it seems most players are individuals that are going to do what's best for them, and not wait for others to make decisions before they do. Again, I can think of no other examples of star players saying hey, let's team up here, and it happening.

If anything Free Agency this year showed players prefer places with something in place as opposed to blank slates (LAL, NYK). We may not be a good team next year, but we have a chance to be a competitive PO fighting team. If we go the route of clearing every single contract, we risk being a 20 win team with nothing to fight for and ultimately nothing to show for it.



3. Who are these FAs that would come here?
Horford?
Why would he leave a 60 win contender in Atlanta? Who has been linked to wanting to play with him?

Dwight?
A 30+ year old on the decline? Who's been clamoring to play with him lately or who would he bring? Seems if he really wanted to be here, he would have been a few years back.

Conley?
The PG on the contending team in Memphis, where Gasol just signed long-term supposedly because he thinks Conley is staying? Either way, who has he been linked to joining forces with?

Noah?
The shell of his former self on a better team than us?

Hibbert?
The guys who was salary dumped for cap relief and a 2nd?

Batum?
I'm down, but we can get him anyway and I again don't know of any players linked to him.

R.Anderson?
The oft injured guy with declining numbers who is not a good rebounder despite his rep and not a good defender?

Al Jefferson?
Umm, no.

Chandler Parsons?
He's Dallas's recruiter and isn't going anywhere. He also may have had microfracture.

Demarr Derozen?
The guy expecting $25m who can't shoot 3s?

Rondo?
The PG who has been dumped by two straight teams? Who wants to play with him again?


The restricted FAs who's team will certainly match them, like every single team did this year?
Beal, MKG, Drummond, etc.
I'd cross them off any list right away.

IMO, it's pie in the sky thinking, the same swing for the fences mentality that got us into this predicament.


4. Why is it assumed we can't clear more cap space if we need it?
Unless the worry is a serious injury to Lopez or Thad, I don't get it.

Thad is making a smaller percentage of the cap than he did last contract. (I even saw a recent post by Prok where he said he was a good contract) He is now in his prime as well. Philly was able to get a 1st rounder for him last summer when he was arguably a lesser player and on an expiring contract (PO) that was a higher percentage of the cap. In fact, he looks like perfect sign and trade filler, as he would be about half the max.

Next year player's of his caliber could be making $15m+.

There will also be much more cap space than there will be player's worth spending it on. Almost every team will have significant cap space and there will be more cap space than ever. The cap is jumping severely the next few years and teams will need to hit the salary floor and want to hit the cap. There are only so many FAs to go around (and most will stay with their teams) but there will be the most cap space on record. Would teams rather pay new cap prices for these FAs (25% more than what it is now), or would they rather pay players old cap prices?

I'm guessing we can get cap space and an asset for Thad, if he's not sign and trade fodder...

Keep in mind this is IF there is a better player/value/fit available and we need more than the $40m or so in cap we will already have.

"Oh but King wouldn't trade Thad"
Sure he would.
He also said he wasn't stretching D.Will.
He also said we weren't moving up in the draft.
His contract is also up at the end of the season and might not have a say

It's a business. Thad knows that, Billy knows that.


5. What if we don't find a FA/fit/value better than Thad that we need extra cap space for?
Most FAs are going to remain with their teams. Others are going to try to join teams that are or close to contending.
If we play the market card, NYK is the same market, has a star, a top draft pick and role players.
LAL is in a great market and has Russell, Randle, Clarkson to add to, plus has a history of winning.

If we strike out in FA, we wait until 2017?
Ok, and if we strike out then?
Keep waiting?

Seems a major risk.. to put out a what would probably be a truly terrible team if the top FAs continue to spurn us. Attendance could dwindle and Prok may sell. There goes one of our major appeals...an owner willing to spend whatever. Ownership could be in flux and we become less attractive.


6. Thad doesn't move the needle
Do I think we are a good team with Thad?
No, but I think we are a significantly better team with him than without him.
Without him we are starting....T.Rob? Bargnani, Cliff Alexander? The great crop of FA PFs that signed for the MLE? (please don't say David West would have)
With him, I think we can at least stay in the hunt for the PO until the bitter end that may have some intrigue to players.
Without him, I think we are a true bottom feeder in the East that no one even looks at.

Thus, I think we get on court value from him.. and I think we could get value from him in the future if we find an opportunity to or need to. In other words, I think we wasted an asset if we simply let him walk for nothing. And this comes down to one simple belief.. I don't see how he cost us the chance at 2016 Free Agent money should we need it. (my other belief being we probably won't need it)


All in all, there is some kind of game theory going on here.
You have to take into account

a. Could we have found a better fit/value/player in 2016 that we need extra cap space for?
If no, could we have found them in 2017, etc?
If yes...
Do you think Thad is movable in a trade or sign and trade?
If yes, there is no big deal
If no, then I understand the concern (though I do not agree)

Or do you think there will be star players looking to team up in 2016?
If yes..who are they, what makes you believe that, what makes them chose Brooklyn?
And if yes, does Thad prevent that?
If no, the point is moot.

Ideally, you try assigning odds to those questions and permutations.

IMO the scenario being lobbied for is:

Yes, there will be star FAs looking to team up
Yes, they will want to come to Brooklyn for some reason
Yes, Thad will be un-tradable either in sign and trade or salary dump

Now.. what do we think the odds of that are?
IMO low.

The scenario on the other side.
Thad is a valuable player on a valuable contract. IF there are star players that want to align in Brooklyn, he does not hinder that as he could be moved, but IMO there will not be multiple star players looking to align in BRK.
That seems more likely... and thus in the meanwhile we have a a player with on court value and trade value.


Finally, I started this thread, but don't plan on visiting it much.
It was mainly to get this played-out topic out of every single thread that's existed this off-season.
Almost everyone knows everyone's stance, but now it was getting personal and ugly.

Plus..news alert..we DID sign Thad.
What's done is done.

IMO there are more pressing topics out there such as
-who makes the team?
-what do we do about PG?
-do we move Joe for assets if possible?
etc.

Murder in the 1st degree. Said everything I was thinking but too lazy to type.

[Universe]

If someone was willing to help out the Spurs, you don't think the Nets could find someone to take back a productive player on what will be a bargain deal? Cap space can also come in the form of contracts that have options/non guarantees by a certain date. You're trying to paint Thad as an albatross/hindrance when his contract isn't. The cap is also about to rise, I doubt getting space to acquire another max player will be an issue, if the opportunity presents itself.

Are you seriously under the belief that the Nets should have not resigned Thad because it jeopardizes your fantasy of enticing Durant and Lebron James to leave winning situations in order to team up to come here? Because going off of what you've said, and who would be available that is worth shelling out two 10 year plus max deals to, that's your angle.

This.

[Trader_Joe]

Most know my thoughts on the topic but I'll lay em out one more time

1. Using this logic, should we have not signed Brook, Larkin or Ellington (the last two make more than the minimum and thus cut $3m into 2016 cap if they do not opt out)?
We signed 3 players that potentially chew up $26m or so in cap space.
Should we have let them all walk so that we have a better chance at these star players?

-no, that logic is NOT the same. Larkin and ellington make near the minimum, they dont effect our ability to sign 2 max free agents.

-Lopez is fine, he prevents you from signing a 3rd max free agent, but lopez is at least a borderline all-star who could be the 3rd best player on a contending team.

-thad is not an allstar and he DOES prevent you from signing a second max player next year. he is nothing like larkin/ellington since he doesnt make the minimum and he is nothing like brook as he is not an all-star caliubur player.

Yes it is the same... they make more than the minimum and thus cut into cap space.
Thad most likely does NOT prevent you from signing a 2nd max player unless for some reason he is injured.
BTW.. when is the last time (besides Miami) two max players have signed together?
I don't think ever.

2. Where is the precedent for players wanting to come together and basing their decisions on others?
As far as I know, it's only happened once in Miami, where a already good team, already had a superstar on place and a mastermind behind it Riley. They also were able to resign role players on the cheap that they had already like Haslem, Miller, Jones IIRC. Either way these guys came together, with not much depth, and were arguably a disappointment compared to expectations and things ended unceremoniously with LBJ leaving. Perhaps these guys showed, stars teaming up doesn't work, rather stars joining a team does?

it happened with the Celtics with KG and allen. it happened with the cavs with love and LBJ. it happened with the heat with Bosh/LBJ.

also, you cant really talk about "precendent" with a CBA that isnt very old. how often have the top 2 players in the NBA been free agents at the same time like LBJ/Durant would have. what is the precendent for that? it hasnt happened often but the opportunity for it to happen hasnt been there often either.

I also find this irrelevant, since even if stars DONT team up to come here our worst case is we just sign a thad level player anyhow.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
KG and Allen were traded for.
Love was traded for and LBJ signed there before they landed Love and no assurances they would.

3. Who are these FAs that would come here?
Horford?
Why would he leave a 60 win contender in Atlanta? Who has been linked to wanting to play with him?

Dwight?
A 30+ year old on the decline? Who's been clamoring to play with him lately or who would he bring? Seems if he really wanted to be here, he would have been a few years back.

Conley?
The PG on the contending team in Memphis, where Gasol just signed long-term supposedly because he thinks Conley is staying? Either way, who has he been linked to joining forces with?

Noah?
The shell of his former self on a better team than us?

Hibbert?
The guys who was salary dumped for cap relief and a 2nd?

Batum?
I'm down, but we can get him anyway and I again don't know of any players linked to him.

R.Anderson?
The oft injured guy with declining numbers who is not a good rebounder despite his rep and not a good defender?

Al Jefferson?
Umm, no.

Chandler Parsons?
He's Dallas's recruiter and isn't going anywhere. He also may have had microfracture.

Demarr Derozen?
The guy expecting $25m who can't shoot 3s?

Rondo?
The PG who has been dumped by two straight teams? Who wants to play with him again?


The restricted FAs who's team will certainly match them, like every single team did this year?
Beal, MKG, Drummond, etc.
I'd cross them off any list right away.

IMO, it's pie in the sky thinking, the same swing for the fences mentality that got us into this predicament.

which of those options is not at least as good if not much better then thad? it would be near impossible not to at least find someone as good as thad. the upside is a star. im not sure why that isnt worth the risk

Some are, some aren't.
But the point is what are the chances we land two of them?
Slim to none (not because of Thad) because they are likely not leaving better situations to come here. If they do leave it's to go to a possibly better place.. even the Knicks and Lakers have more appeal

4. Why is it assumed we can't clear more cap space if we need it?
Unless the worry is a serious injury to Lopez or Thad, I don't get it.

Thad is making a smaller percentage of the cap than he did last contract. (I even saw a recent post by Prok where he said he was a good contract) He is now in his prime as well. Philly was able to get a 1st rounder for him last summer when he was arguably a lesser player and on an expiring contract (PO) that was a higher percentage of the cap. In fact, he looks like perfect sign and trade filler, as he would be about half the max.

Next year player's of his caliber could be making $15m+.

if thad gets injured who knows if we can trade him. he probably wont get injured, but why risk it? for what? to win 35 games instead of 30? With deron gone i think keeping thad is even less justified, as much as we all hate deron, our playoff hopes dont seem very likely.

And Lopez could get injured.. or could any player ever.
Thad is not injury prone, there is no risk. It's an absurd argument.

And yes.. 5 extra wins could mean the playoffs in the East.
I don't claim to know if we make the PO, but I know we have a much better chance with Thad.

There will also be much more cap space than there will be player's worth spending it on. Almost every team will have significant cap space and there will be more cap space than ever. The cap is jumping severely the next few years and teams will need to hit the salary floor and want to hit the cap. There are only so many FAs to go around (and most will stay with their teams) but there will be the most cap space on record. Would teams rather pay new cap prices for these FAs (25% more than what it is now), or would they rather pay players old cap prices?

hitting the salary floor is about the easiest thing to do in the NBA. there are always guys happy to get overpaid for 1 year. hell alot of times you can even benefit, trading cap space for an expiring contract and getting an asset for it.

There is the floor (which will be the highest ever so there is no precedent to say it's easy) and the cap will be higher than ever. Why will teams want to overpay for the left over FAs that aren't worth their money when they could fill the roster with reasonable deals. The 2016 FA is not that deep after a say 10 high end players...most of whom aren't going anywhere.

5. What if we don't find a FA/fit/value better than Thad that we need extra cap space for?[/i]
Most FAs are going to remain with their teams. Others are going to try to join teams that are or close to contending.
If we play the market card, NYK is the same market, has a star, a top draft pick and role players.
LAL is in a great market and has Russell, Randle, Clarkson to add to, plus has a history of winning.

If we strike out in FA, we wait until 2017?

yes, if we strike out in free agency, we try our luck again the next year

Ok, and if we strike out then?
Keep waiting?

Yup

And keep waiting and keep getting rejected?
And keep putting out a knowingly inferior product for the hope that one day.. we might luck out in free agency?
Also, you realize the cap is going to keep going up and up for years?
We will have more and more flexibility.

Seems a major risk.. to put out a what would probably be a truly terrible team if the top FAs continue to spurn us. Attendance could dwindle and Prok may sell. There goes one of our major appeals...an owner willing to spend whatever. Ownership could be in flux and we become less attractive.

how is this any different then if thad is on the team? thad isnt some impact player who is the difference between sucking and being a good team. i think most like thad, but he isnt that good of a player to change your franchise by 10-15 wins. and in the interim of trying to land a free agent, you can sign a guy similar to thad. would we really be any worse with nene or ryan anderson?

striking out on free agency without thad doesnt prevent us for trying to develop our young guys or making trades. all the things we would do with thad we could do without thad

You said it yourself.
How is stepping back this season without Thad so we can sign Ryan Anderson any different than being better this year and then having a cheaper, better player than Ryan Anderson (I say that because Anderson is injury prone and lives on reputation.. his numbers have declined and his rebounding not very good.. nor his D)

Difference is...
We are better this year
We assured ourselves of a decent PF (as opposed to NO assurances of a decent PF)
We have continuity

6. Thad doesn't move the needle
Do I think we are a good team with Thad?
No, but I think we are a significantly better team with him than without him.

define significantly better? 5 games? 10? 15? 20? that is kind of vague.

Fight for PO vs. fight for nothing (other than not giving Boston a top 3 pick.)
Look like a respectable/competitive team vs. look like NY of last year

Without him we are starting....T.Rob? Bargnani, Cliff Alexander? The great crop of FA PFs that signed for the MLE? (please don't say David West would have)
With him, I think we can at least stay in the hunt for the PO until the bitter end that may have some intrigue to players.
Without him, I think we are a true bottom feeder in the East that no one even looks at.

i dont think we are more then 5 games worse with trob starting. i think we would actually be better if we didint signed thad and went with jordan hill or someone like that for all/part of the MLE.

I just dont agree that thad is the difference between playoffs (38-40 wins) and bottom feeders (20-25 wins). he isnt worth 15-20 wins. few guys are. thad isnt some top 10 player.

Did not say he was.
My point is ..we are better with him than without him and may have a chance at the PO with him.
You've managed to come up with one name all along.. Jordan Hill, who (while I don't know what he got paid) might not have been affordable and might not have chosen us. Both would have had to happen...and he is but one player you've ever been able to name.

All in all, there is some kind of game theory going on here.
You have to take into account

a. Could we have found a better fit/value/player in 2016 that we need extra cap space for?

hard not to. thad isnt a great player

If no, could we have found them in 2017, etc?

again, hard not to

Big assumption given our history.
And again the point is, not whether or not we can't find players, it's if we've found multiple ones and need more cap space.

If yes...
Do you think Thad is movable in a trade or sign and trade?

not if he got hurt, and to me that isnt worth the risk

Again, he's not injury prone.. and every single player could get hurt.
If this is now the crux of your argument, I feel pretty confident my work is done. The odds that happens are about the odds we make the ECF with Thad.. I'd rather go for that minute chance.

If no, then I understand the concern (though I do not agree)

fair enough

Or do you think there will be star players looking to team up in 2016?

I 100% expect 2 of the top 3-5 free agents to team up, not sure its here but i think thats a good bet

Even though it's only happened once (with a star already there) and Free agency continuously shows players make decisions based upon what's right for them, not contingent upon others decisions.

If yes..who are they, what makes you believe that, what makes them chose Brooklyn?

because that gives them the best chance to win. lebron + durant is better then anything on any team out there. not sure if they would choose brooklyn, but few teams would be able to max both (they both would get the 10 year max at 29.3M each, and while lots of teams will have cap space, i dont count many that would have that much. and of the ones who will, few have anyone as good as brook lopez... i.e. Denver)

Lebron and Durant?
Really?
So the 1% chance they want to team up in Brooklyn, but our chances are ruined because Thad got injured is the scenario we are going by?

And if yes, does Thad prevent that?
If no, the point is moot.

Yes, thad doesnt prevent that, and that is 100% the reason why i dont want to sign thad. we cant offer 2 full max deals with thad on the team, even with his contract being a good one

Thank you... "thad doesnt prevent that"

We also can't offer two max contracts if no wants them.
But if they do, I would wager anything we can make it happen.
Again, he is also perfect sign and trade filler.

Ideally, you try assigning odds to those questions and permutations.

IMO the scenario being lobbied for is:

Yes, there will be star FAs looking to team up
Yes, they will want to come to Brooklyn for some reason
Yes, Thad will be un-tradable either in sign and trade or salary dump

Now.. what do we think the odds of that are?
IMO low.

the odds of stars teaming up to play in brooklyn is 0 if we dont have the money to do it. so even if the odds of them coming without thad here is 1%, thats better then 0. thad being untradeable doesnt matter to me. i dont have to worry about trading him if i dont sign him, and i think it is unwise to sign a guy you may want to trade 1 year later. anything can happen, injuries, who knows.

And I think it's unwise to assume we're going to need to move him for more cap space (as we will have $40m) and also assume we couldn't be able to IF we had to.

IMO there are more pressing topics out there such as
-who makes the team?
-what do we do about PG?
-do we move Joe for assets if possible?
etc.

To me the most pressing issue between now and the trade deadline is how can we trade thad young. everything else to me is extremely minor in comparison

[/quote]
The only reason we should trade him.. and that means we found a better player/fit/value already and our $40m in cap space isn't enough. That may never happen.


BTW.. wasn't your argument "we can't sign one max player" a week ago (because you would not believe me that we would stretch Deron), now it's "we can't sign two max players" .. so again why not keep shedding salary to go for 3 max players? We don't need anything but vet minimum players to surround them with since there is no chance any of these three max players get injured either.

[Starski]

Most know my thoughts on the topic but I'll lay em out one more time

1. Using this logic, should we have not signed Brook, Larkin or Ellington (the last two make more than the minimum and thus cut $3m into 2016 cap if they do not opt out)?
We signed 3 players that potentially chew up $26m or so in cap space.
Should we have let them all walk so that we have a better chance at these star players?

-no, that logic is NOT the same. Larkin and ellington make near the minimum, they dont effect our ability to sign 2 max free agents.

-Lopez is fine, he prevents you from signing a 3rd max free agent, but lopez is at least a borderline all-star who could be the 3rd best player on a contending team.

-thad is not an allstar and he DOES prevent you from signing a second max player next year. he is nothing like larkin/ellington since he doesnt make the minimum and he is nothing like brook as he is not an all-star caliubur player.

Yes it is the same... they make more than the minimum and thus cut into cap space.
Thad most likely does NOT prevent you from signing a 2nd max player unless for some reason he is injured.
BTW.. when is the last time (besides Miami) two max players have signed together?
I don't think ever.

2. Where is the precedent for players wanting to come together and basing their decisions on others?
As far as I know, it's only happened once in Miami, where a already good team, already had a superstar on place and a mastermind behind it Riley. They also were able to resign role players on the cheap that they had already like Haslem, Miller, Jones IIRC. Either way these guys came together, with not much depth, and were arguably a disappointment compared to expectations and things ended unceremoniously with LBJ leaving. Perhaps these guys showed, stars teaming up doesn't work, rather stars joining a team does?

it happened with the Celtics with KG and allen. it happened with the cavs with love and LBJ. it happened with the heat with Bosh/LBJ.

also, you cant really talk about "precendent" with a CBA that isnt very old. how often have the top 2 players in the NBA been free agents at the same time like LBJ/Durant would have. what is the precendent for that? it hasnt happened often but the opportunity for it to happen hasnt been there often either.

I also find this irrelevant, since even if stars DONT team up to come here our worst case is we just sign a thad level player anyhow.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
KG and Allen were traded for.
Love was traded for and LBJ signed there before they landed Love and no assurances they would.

3. Who are these FAs that would come here?
Horford?
Why would he leave a 60 win contender in Atlanta? Who has been linked to wanting to play with him?

Dwight?
A 30+ year old on the decline? Who's been clamoring to play with him lately or who would he bring? Seems if he really wanted to be here, he would have been a few years back.

Conley?
The PG on the contending team in Memphis, where Gasol just signed long-term supposedly because he thinks Conley is staying? Either way, who has he been linked to joining forces with?

Noah?
The shell of his former self on a better team than us?

Hibbert?
The guys who was salary dumped for cap relief and a 2nd?

Batum?
I'm down, but we can get him anyway and I again don't know of any players linked to him.

R.Anderson?
The oft injured guy with declining numbers who is not a good rebounder despite his rep and not a good defender?

Al Jefferson?
Umm, no.

Chandler Parsons?
He's Dallas's recruiter and isn't going anywhere. He also may have had microfracture.

Demarr Derozen?
The guy expecting $25m who can't shoot 3s?

Rondo?
The PG who has been dumped by two straight teams? Who wants to play with him again?


The restricted FAs who's team will certainly match them, like every single team did this year?
Beal, MKG, Drummond, etc.
I'd cross them off any list right away.

IMO, it's pie in the sky thinking, the same swing for the fences mentality that got us into this predicament.

which of those options is not at least as good if not much better then thad? it would be near impossible not to at least find someone as good as thad. the upside is a star. im not sure why that isnt worth the risk

Some are, some aren't.
But the point is what are the chances we land two of them?
Slim to none (not because of Thad) because they are likely not leaving better situations to come here. If they do leave it's to go to a possibly better place.. even the Knicks and Lakers have more appeal

4. Why is it assumed we can't clear more cap space if we need it?
Unless the worry is a serious injury to Lopez or Thad, I don't get it.

Thad is making a smaller percentage of the cap than he did last contract. (I even saw a recent post by Prok where he said he was a good contract) He is now in his prime as well. Philly was able to get a 1st rounder for him last summer when he was arguably a lesser player and on an expiring contract (PO) that was a higher percentage of the cap. In fact, he looks like perfect sign and trade filler, as he would be about half the max.

Next year player's of his caliber could be making $15m+.

if thad gets injured who knows if we can trade him. he probably wont get injured, but why risk it? for what? to win 35 games instead of 30? With deron gone i think keeping thad is even less justified, as much as we all hate deron, our playoff hopes dont seem very likely.

And Lopez could get injured.. or could any player ever.
Thad is not injury prone, there is no risk. It's an absurd argument.

And yes.. 5 extra wins could mean the playoffs in the East.
I don't claim to know if we make the PO, but I know we have a much better chance with Thad.

There will also be much more cap space than there will be player's worth spending it on. Almost every team will have significant cap space and there will be more cap space than ever. The cap is jumping severely the next few years and teams will need to hit the salary floor and want to hit the cap. There are only so many FAs to go around (and most will stay with their teams) but there will be the most cap space on record. Would teams rather pay new cap prices for these FAs (25% more than what it is now), or would they rather pay players old cap prices?

hitting the salary floor is about the easiest thing to do in the NBA. there are always guys happy to get overpaid for 1 year. hell alot of times you can even benefit, trading cap space for an expiring contract and getting an asset for it.

There is the floor (which will be the highest ever so there is no precedent to say it's easy) and the cap will be higher than ever. Why will teams want to overpay for the left over FAs that aren't worth their money when they could fill the roster with reasonable deals. The 2016 FA is not that deep after a say 10 high end players...most of whom aren't going anywhere.

5. What if we don't find a FA/fit/value better than Thad that we need extra cap space for?[/i]
Most FAs are going to remain with their teams. Others are going to try to join teams that are or close to contending.
If we play the market card, NYK is the same market, has a star, a top draft pick and role players.
LAL is in a great market and has Russell, Randle, Clarkson to add to, plus has a history of winning.

If we strike out in FA, we wait until 2017?

yes, if we strike out in free agency, we try our luck again the next year

Ok, and if we strike out then?
Keep waiting?

Yup

And keep waiting and keep getting rejected?
And keep putting out a knowingly inferior product for the hope that one day.. we might luck out in free agency?
Also, you realize the cap is going to keep going up and up for years?
We will have more and more flexibility.

Seems a major risk.. to put out a what would probably be a truly terrible team if the top FAs continue to spurn us. Attendance could dwindle and Prok may sell. There goes one of our major appeals...an owner willing to spend whatever. Ownership could be in flux and we become less attractive.

how is this any different then if thad is on the team? thad isnt some impact player who is the difference between sucking and being a good team. i think most like thad, but he isnt that good of a player to change your franchise by 10-15 wins. and in the interim of trying to land a free agent, you can sign a guy similar to thad. would we really be any worse with nene or ryan anderson?

striking out on free agency without thad doesnt prevent us for trying to develop our young guys or making trades. all the things we would do with thad we could do without thad

You said it yourself.
How is stepping back this season without Thad so we can sign Ryan Anderson any different than being better this year and then having a cheaper, better player than Ryan Anderson (I say that because Anderson is injury prone and lives on reputation.. his numbers have declined and his rebounding not very good.. nor his D)

Difference is...
We are better this year
We assured ourselves of a decent PF (as opposed to NO assurances of a decent PF)
We have continuity

6. Thad doesn't move the needle
Do I think we are a good team with Thad?
No, but I think we are a significantly better team with him than without him.

define significantly better? 5 games? 10? 15? 20? that is kind of vague.

Fight for PO vs. fight for nothing (other than not giving Boston a top 3 pick.)
Look like a respectable/competitive team vs. look like NY of last year

Without him we are starting....T.Rob? Bargnani, Cliff Alexander? The great crop of FA PFs that signed for the MLE? (please don't say David West would have)
With him, I think we can at least stay in the hunt for the PO until the bitter end that may have some intrigue to players.
Without him, I think we are a true bottom feeder in the East that no one even looks at.

i dont think we are more then 5 games worse with trob starting. i think we would actually be better if we didint signed thad and went with jordan hill or someone like that for all/part of the MLE.

I just dont agree that thad is the difference between playoffs (38-40 wins) and bottom feeders (20-25 wins). he isnt worth 15-20 wins. few guys are. thad isnt some top 10 player.

Did not say he was.
My point is ..we are better with him than without him and may have a chance at the PO with him.
You've managed to come up with one name all along.. Jordan Hill, who (while I don't know what he got paid) might not have been affordable and might not have chosen us. Both would have had to happen...and he is but one player you've ever been able to name.

All in all, there is some kind of game theory going on here.
You have to take into account

a. Could we have found a better fit/value/player in 2016 that we need extra cap space for?

hard not to. thad isnt a great player

If no, could we have found them in 2017, etc?

again, hard not to

Big assumption given our history.
And again the point is, not whether or not we can't find players, it's if we've found multiple ones and need more cap space.

If yes...
Do you think Thad is movable in a trade or sign and trade?

not if he got hurt, and to me that isnt worth the risk

Again, he's not injury prone.. and every single player could get hurt.
If this is now the crux of your argument, I feel pretty confident my work is done. The odds that happens are about the odds we make the ECF with Thad.. I'd rather go for that minute chance.

If no, then I understand the concern (though I do not agree)

fair enough

Or do you think there will be star players looking to team up in 2016?

I 100% expect 2 of the top 3-5 free agents to team up, not sure its here but i think thats a good bet

Even though it's only happened once (with a star already there) and Free agency continuously shows players make decisions based upon what's right for them, not contingent upon others decisions.

If yes..who are they, what makes you believe that, what makes them chose Brooklyn?

because that gives them the best chance to win. lebron + durant is better then anything on any team out there. not sure if they would choose brooklyn, but few teams would be able to max both (they both would get the 10 year max at 29.3M each, and while lots of teams will have cap space, i dont count many that would have that much. and of the ones who will, few have anyone as good as brook lopez... i.e. Denver)

Lebron and Durant?
Really?
So the 1% chance they want to team up in Brooklyn, but our chances are ruined because Thad got injured is the scenario we are going by?

And if yes, does Thad prevent that?
If no, the point is moot.

Yes, thad doesnt prevent that, and that is 100% the reason why i dont want to sign thad. we cant offer 2 full max deals with thad on the team, even with his contract being a good one

Thank you... "thad doesnt prevent that"

We also can't offer two max contracts if no wants them.
But if they do, I would wager anything we can make it happen.
Again, he is also perfect sign and trade filler.

Ideally, you try assigning odds to those questions and permutations.

IMO the scenario being lobbied for is:

Yes, there will be star FAs looking to team up
Yes, they will want to come to Brooklyn for some reason
Yes, Thad will be un-tradable either in sign and trade or salary dump

Now.. what do we think the odds of that are?
IMO low.

the odds of stars teaming up to play in brooklyn is 0 if we dont have the money to do it. so even if the odds of them coming without thad here is 1%, thats better then 0. thad being untradeable doesnt matter to me. i dont have to worry about trading him if i dont sign him, and i think it is unwise to sign a guy you may want to trade 1 year later. anything can happen, injuries, who knows.

And I think it's unwise to assume we're going to need to move him for more cap space (as we will have $40m) and also assume we couldn't be able to IF we had to.

IMO there are more pressing topics out there such as
-who makes the team?
-what do we do about PG?
-do we move Joe for assets if possible?
etc.

To me the most pressing issue between now and the trade deadline is how can we trade thad young. everything else to me is extremely minor in comparison

The only reason we should trade him.. and that means we found a better player/fit/value already and our $40m in cap space isn't enough. That may never happen.


BTW.. wasn't your argument "we can't sign one max player" a week ago (because you would not believe me that we would stretch Deron), now it's "we can't sign two max players" .. so again why not keep shedding salary to go for 3 max players? We don't need anything but vet minimum players to surround them with since there is no chance any of these three max players get injured either.[/quote]

Said everything I was thinking but too lazy to type.


[/quote]