RealGM

‏@SportsQuotient
Shaun Livingston has received multiple offers starting at $6M per season, about $3M more than what Nets can offer. pic.twitter.com/8ObIftM0b3

Looks like he's not coming back. We need another guard now hope Alan Anderson comes back.

The first domino falls. Pierce is next.

The Nets will be in a heated contest for that 8th seed next season, and will have the highest payroll in the league

They need to fire King.

We knew this already though, we knew Livingston is gunna get better offers and we knew people were gunna go after Paul Pierce.

I do think with Kidd gone Livingston will be gone as well... but I actually can see Paul Pierce coming back if we can get a solid Vet coach that he thinks can get something good out of him and KG. If not, then he'll go to the Clippers

He needs to take that deal, if I'm going to be objective. I'd imagine that he'd get something like 4 years, 24 million on the open market, while the most we can offer him is like 3 years, 10 million. No brainer. Especially for a guy whose prime was taken from him by an injury, this might be his last and only opportunity to cash in on his talent.

I think we're being idiots with regards to Pierce though. He's still a good player...our 2nd best player last year, in fact. And there's no benefit to us for letting him walk. "Letting the market dictate his value" is stupid, offer him 15 million a year for 1 season...I mean, if I were him, I would probably still just sign with the Clippers, because money shouldn't be a factor for him anymore, but if he actually likes it here, and wants to play with KG again, and is willing to spend one more season making big money before making role player money somewhere else, he might take it.

I really want us to target Thabo as Livingston's replacement

therealbig3 wrote:He needs to take that deal, if I'm going to be objective. I'd imagine that he'd get something like 4 years, 24 million on the open market, while the most we can offer him is like 3 years, 10 million. No brainer. Especially for a guy whose prime was taken from him by an injury, this might be his last and only opportunity to cash in on his talent.

I think we're being idiots with regards to Pierce though. He's still a good player...our 2nd best player last year, in fact. And there's no benefit to us for letting him walk. "Letting the market dictate his value" is stupid, offer him 15 million a year for 1 season...I mean, if I were him, I would probably still just sign with the Clippers, because money shouldn't be a factor for him anymore, but if he actually likes it here, and wants to play with KG again, and is willing to spend one more season making big money before making role player money somewhere else, he might take it.

Agreed wholeheartedly with Pierce. In the regular season he probably was our MVP. Johnson's post season play vaults him above Pierce. We can't sign anyone better than Pierce and will lose a number of games without him. He was instrumental in turning the season around. 1 year $15 million is a no brainer

Zachbretton wrote:We knew this already though, we knew Livingston is gunna get better offers and we knew people were gunna go after Paul Pierce.

I do think with Kidd gone Livingston will be gone as well... but I actually can see Paul Pierce coming back if we can get a solid Vet coach that he thinks can get something good out of him and KG. If not, then he'll go to the Clippers

Pierce will want to contend for a championship, not sit here in Brooklyn to be apart of this mess.

Kiss him goodbye, and KG will probably request a trade or retire.

Zachbretton wrote:We knew this already though, we knew Livingston is gunna get better offers and we knew people were gunna go after Paul Pierce.

I do think with Kidd gone Livingston will be gone as well... but I actually can see Paul Pierce coming back if we can get a solid Vet coach that he thinks can get something good out of him and KG. If not, then he'll go to the Clippers

Agreed, this is no suprise. And there are alternatives(sefelosha?).

Pierce is a better bet to sign, with livingston other teams could offer him alot more. with pierce, we can offer him alot more

Are we really doing a thread for every day of free agency or just today?

There's really no need for a daily FA thread.

therealbig3 wrote:He needs to take that deal, if I'm going to be objective. I'd imagine that he'd get something like 4 years, 24 million on the open market, while the most we can offer him is like 3 years, 10 million. No brainer. Especially for a guy whose prime was taken from him by an injury, this might be his last and only opportunity to cash in on his talent.

I think we're being idiots with regards to Pierce though. He's still a good player...our 2nd best player last year, in fact. And there's no benefit to us for letting him walk. "Letting the market dictate his value" is stupid, offer him 15 million a year for 1 season...I mean, if I were him, I would probably still just sign with the Clippers, because money shouldn't be a factor for him anymore, but if he actually likes it here, and wants to play with KG again, and is willing to spend one more season making big money before making role player money somewhere else, he might take it.

Wouldn't it make sense to see how much teams are willing to offer then trumping that offer? Pierce will probably want more than just 1 year. He might even ask for a no trade clause just to avoid any trades removing him from his family during the season.

As long as we make a swift move to counter the highest bidder with an extra year and more dollars without massively overpaying, It might be a good idea.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/johnschuhmann/status/483990747927289856[/tweet]

No more Dray Live.

Eh he was good for the most part, but not not going to miss him that much with the emergence of Plumlee and Mirza...

Paradise wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:He needs to take that deal, if I'm going to be objective. I'd imagine that he'd get something like 4 years, 24 million on the open market, while the most we can offer him is like 3 years, 10 million. No brainer. Especially for a guy whose prime was taken from him by an injury, this might be his last and only opportunity to cash in on his talent.

I think we're being idiots with regards to Pierce though. He's still a good player...our 2nd best player last year, in fact. And there's no benefit to us for letting him walk. "Letting the market dictate his value" is stupid, offer him 15 million a year for 1 season...I mean, if I were him, I would probably still just sign with the Clippers, because money shouldn't be a factor for him anymore, but if he actually likes it here, and wants to play with KG again, and is willing to spend one more season making big money before making role player money somewhere else, he might take it.

Wouldn't it make sense to see how much teams are willing to offer then trumping that offer? Pierce will probably want more than just 1 year. He might even ask for a no trade clause just to avoid any trades removing him from his family during the season.

As long as we make a swift move to counter the highest bidder with an extra year and more dollars without massively overpaying, It might be a good idea.

Well, we can't offer him 2 years, because we want to be under the tax in 2015-2016. So the most we can offer him is 1 year. 1 year at way above market value (Pierce is not worth 15 million a year anymore) is totally fair. Hell, who cares...give him a 1 year, max deal (what is that, like 20 million?)...we don't gain anything by letting him walk, unless we do a S&T. It's not really going to help us get under the tax threshold, at least no more than signing him for a year and then letting him walk. Meanwhile, we still need to at least make the playoffs, so keeping a good player like Pierce would be pretty important.

I don't understand what the point is of testing the market...it doesn't tell us anything we don't know.

therealbig3 wrote:

Paradise wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:He needs to take that deal, if I'm going to be objective. I'd imagine that he'd get something like 4 years, 24 million on the open market, while the most we can offer him is like 3 years, 10 million. No brainer. Especially for a guy whose prime was taken from him by an injury, this might be his last and only opportunity to cash in on his talent.

I think we're being idiots with regards to Pierce though. He's still a good player...our 2nd best player last year, in fact. And there's no benefit to us for letting him walk. "Letting the market dictate his value" is stupid, offer him 15 million a year for 1 season...I mean, if I were him, I would probably still just sign with the Clippers, because money shouldn't be a factor for him anymore, but if he actually likes it here, and wants to play with KG again, and is willing to spend one more season making big money before making role player money somewhere else, he might take it.

Wouldn't it make sense to see how much teams are willing to offer then trumping that offer? Pierce will probably want more than just 1 year. He might even ask for a no trade clause just to avoid any trades removing him from his family during the season.

As long as we make a swift move to counter the highest bidder with an extra year and more dollars without massively overpaying, It might be a good idea.

Well, we can't offer him 2 years, because we want to be under the tax in 2015-2016. So the most we can offer him is 1 year. 1 year at way above market value (Pierce is not worth 15 million a year anymore) is totally fair. Hell, who cares...give him a 1 year, max deal (what is that, like 20 million?)...we don't gain anything by letting him walk, unless we do a S&T. It's not really going to help us get under the tax threshold, at least no more than signing him for a year and then letting him walk. Meanwhile, we still need to at least make the playoffs, so keeping a good player like Pierce would be pretty important.

I don't understand what the point is of testing the market...it doesn't tell us anything we don't know.

Chicago, Portland, Dallas, Houston and Memphis, sources said, have all formally entered the Pierce bidding. But Brooklyn, I'm told, really only fears the Clippers in this process, with Pierce's beloved Doc Rivers naturally leading L.A.'s recruiting efforts.

This is incredibly risky.

The Nets have the money edge but the Clippers have:

A)A winning team with legit ballers in place. Not a bunch of players with albatross deals either sitting in suits or getting **** ed on by Mario Chalmers.

B)Doc Rivers, a coach that Pierce will respect more than anyone here

C)He's also from the area

D)The ability to CONTEND FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP. SOMETHING WE DAMN SURE WON'T OFFER A PLAYER ON HIS LAST LEGS

So unless Pierce just wants that last big paycheck, he'll stay here with us and get his ass kicked. If he wants to win and actually be apart of a team that could use his services while winning games and contending for a championship...he'll be in a Clippers uni next season.

What a MESS.

MrDollarBills wrote:The Nets have the money edge but the Clippers have:

A)A winning team with legit ballers in place. Not a bunch of players with albatross deals either sitting in suits or getting **** ed on by Mario Chalmers.

B)Doc Rivers, a coach that Pierce will respect more than anyone here

C)He's also from the area

D)The ability to CONTEND FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP. SOMETHING WE DAMN SURE WON'T OFFER A PLAYER ON HIS LAST LEGS

So unless Pierce just wants that last big paycheck, he'll stay here with us and get his ass kicked. If he wants to win and actually be apart of a team that could use his services while winning games and contending for a championship...he'll be in a Clippers uni next season.

What a MESS.

Which is why if we want to keep him (and as a fan of the Nets, I want him to stay so that we don't suck, even if I know it's going to be a wasted season for him), we need to offer him WAY more than what anyone else is, because that's our one advantage.

therealbig3 wrote:

MrDollarBills wrote:The Nets have the money edge but the Clippers have:

A)A winning team with legit ballers in place. Not a bunch of players with albatross deals either sitting in suits or getting **** ed on by Mario Chalmers.

B)Doc Rivers, a coach that Pierce will respect more than anyone here

C)He's also from the area

D)The ability to CONTEND FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP. SOMETHING WE DAMN SURE WON'T OFFER A PLAYER ON HIS LAST LEGS

So unless Pierce just wants that last big paycheck, he'll stay here with us and get his ass kicked. If he wants to win and actually be apart of a team that could use his services while winning games and contending for a championship...he'll be in a Clippers uni next season.

What a MESS.

Which is why if we want to keep him (and as a fan of the Nets, I want him to stay so that we don't suck, even if I know it's going to be a wasted season for him), we need to offer him WAY more than what anyone else is, because that's our one advantage.

I have no issue with offering him a 1 year 15 million dollar deal. NONE. I wouldn't blame him, especially if he is set for life financially which he should be, if he declined to take a 2 year deal with a team that is a legit contender.

Paradise wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:

Paradise wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to see how much teams are willing to offer then trumping that offer? Pierce will probably want more than just 1 year. He might even ask for a no trade clause just to avoid any trades removing him from his family during the season.

As long as we make a swift move to counter the highest bidder with an extra year and more dollars without massively overpaying, It might be a good idea.

Well, we can't offer him 2 years, because we want to be under the tax in 2015-2016. So the most we can offer him is 1 year. 1 year at way above market value (Pierce is not worth 15 million a year anymore) is totally fair. Hell, who cares...give him a 1 year, max deal (what is that, like 20 million?)...we don't gain anything by letting him walk, unless we do a S&T. It's not really going to help us get under the tax threshold, at least no more than signing him for a year and then letting him walk. Meanwhile, we still need to at least make the playoffs, so keeping a good player like Pierce would be pretty important.

I don't understand what the point is of testing the market...it doesn't tell us anything we don't know.

Chicago, Portland, Dallas, Houston and Memphis, sources said, have all formally entered the Pierce bidding. But Brooklyn, I'm told, really only fears the Clippers in this process, with Pierce's beloved Doc Rivers naturally leading L.A.'s recruiting efforts.

This is incredibly risky.

Maybe it's just me, but as I posted on the other thread I believe Portland and Memphis can only offer the MLE. I don't they're real threats since I believe if Pierce is taking a paycut only to play for the Clippers.

I do believe Chicago, Dallas and Houstom are credible threats, but Pierce is not their primary target. He would be the fallback if they fail to sign Melo or Lebron.

If he signs within a few days it will be with us or the clippers. If he doesn't he's waiting for Melo to set the market. I believe those teams are also targeting other fairly big FA's. I believe I saw the Bulls and Mavs interested in Pau. The Mavs interested in Deng. Whichever one(s) of those 3 that miss out on Melo and Deng are credible threats that can't be ignored.

kerry kittles wrote:I really want us to target Thabo as Livingston's replacement

He's a good one think I'd rather bring back AA though and they're the same type of player.

I don't understand the mentality..If you're going to pay enough luxury taxes to pay for a couple of small market teams one year, come summertime you don't do a 180 and penny pinch.

There's absolutely NO reason they shouldn't be giving Blatche another 1 year deal. He's the only natural power forward on the roster besides the rookie.

If Pierce leaves; which he probably will imo; it should be because he wants out not because the market was too high.

In the world where Jodie Meeks is worth 3 years/$20 million we have no shot with Livingston