Sean Marks/Kenny Atkinson Exit interview

[MrDollarBills]

I mean if there is a player in the lottery that Marks believes in, and he uses RHJ to acquire that player I will not be happy but I will trust his judgment. After turning Thad into Caris LeVert, Marks has earned my trust.

[NyCeEvO]

The point of the GM and the vision of Marks and co. specifically is not to make the fans feel less bad about awful moves the GM prior to him made at the cost of long term sustainability and growth.

It's not like he could have went out and signed LeBron and Millsap and Al Horford and Gordon Hayward and Mike Conley, anyway. These guys did not want to come to this situation at any cost. They found huge contracts in good to great situations.

Again, I do not see what you wanted him to do? He has at least acquired 2 kids who are obvious long term pieces and a few others who are at least assets and the tank could be on for 2019 and a bunch of late draft picks.

Instead you wanted him to max out Marvin Williams and Rondo and kept Thad Young and been the most competitive 33 win 11th seed in the East! Or at least that's how it feels. Because there isn't a realistic scenario out there where we could have even been a 35 to 42 win treadmill for 3 years. Even the over the hill max guys found those identical to better max deals elsewhere, there haven't been good player salary dumps out there for years and none of the 2nd fiddles wanted to come here either.

Eh, I would have personally done similar to what he suggested. There's always a discussion of tank vs treadmill, and Marks was basically given a free excuse to treadmill all while building a culture here with hardworking veteran players.

As long as he didn't hamstrung us for 2019 when we got our pick back, I don't see how he couldn't have built a fringe playoff team (which quite frankly i think was king's plan, though I would not have trusted him to execute it).

I don't think it's no coincidence that year 1 Kenny/Marks Nets was often compared to Magic-led by Armstrong and Harpring types.

We actually have assets right now because of what Marks and Kenny have done. I really don't see any logic in the route he proposed.

Also...lets not forget that no one wanted to play here.

If we're just talking about the ability to obtain assets, we have no idea whether taking a different path would've yielded different results, specifically not being able to obtain the principal assets we now have.

Billy drafted RHJ, so he doesn't count.

Dinwiddie was a D-League signee, who Marks had his eye on.
Allen and Levert were both picked in the 20s and they were obtained by trading vets to playoff teams who preferred making the playoffs over an 20+ 1st round pick.
D-Lo (a depreciated asset for the Lakers) was obtained by giving up an end of 1st round pick + Lopez while taking on a bad contract.

It's not like we needed a prime asset (e.g. high lotto pick, $20+mil in cap space) to do any of these moves.

Sure, A and B tier level players wouldn't sign here, but there are always mercenary players who want to sign 1 year deals or 2 year deals with a TO/PO for year 2. See KCP, VC, Tyreke Evans, et al.

To me, the only legitimate question that remains is whether our young guys would've been able to develop as much as they have over the last few years. I've always been of the belief that solid veterans can help expedite the growth process of young players in ways that throwing them out there for 35+ minutes per night won't.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is saying that they prefer having King. What I do think people are wondering is whether the path that Marks took was truly the only path to end up where we're currently at.

[MrDollarBills]

Eh, I would have personally done similar to what he suggested. There's always a discussion of tank vs treadmill, and Marks was basically given a free excuse to treadmill all while building a culture here with hardworking veteran players.

As long as he didn't hamstrung us for 2019 when we got our pick back, I don't see how he couldn't have built a fringe playoff team (which quite frankly i think was king's plan, though I would not have trusted him to execute it).

I don't think it's no coincidence that year 1 Kenny/Marks Nets was often compared to Magic-led by Armstrong and Harpring types.

We actually have assets right now because of what Marks and Kenny have done. I really don't see any logic in the route he proposed.

Also...lets not forget that no one wanted to play here.

If we're just talking about the ability to obtain assets, we have no idea whether taking a different path would've yielded different results, specifically not being able to obtain the principal assets we now have.

Billy drafted RHJ, so he doesn't count.

Dinwiddie was a D-League signee, who Marks had his eye on.
Allen and Levert were both picked in the 20s and they were obtained by trading vets to playoff teams who preferred making the playoffs over an 20+ 1st round pick.
D-Lo (a depreciated asset for the Lakers) was obtained by giving up an end of 1st round pick + Lopez while taking on a bad contract.

It's not like we needed a prime asset (e.g. high lotto pick, $20+mil in cap space) to do any of these moves.

Sure, A and B tier level players wouldn't sign here, but there are always mercenary players who want to sign 1 year deals or 2 year deals with a TO/PO for year 2. See KCP, VC, Tyreke Evans, et al.

To me, the only legitimate question that remains is whether our young guys would've been able to develop as much as they have over the last few years. I've always been of the belief that solid veterans can help expedite the growth process of young players in ways that throwing them out there for 35+ minutes per night won't.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is saying that they prefer having King. What I do think people are wondering is whether the path that Marks took was truly the only path to end up where we're currently at.

True indeed, Billy drafted RHJ, but would RHJ be the guy he is now if it wasn't for Marks keeping him here and being under Kenny's tutelage? I think we have to give Marks/Kenny credit in that regard since Marks' culture change includes a primary focus on development.

Would signing a bunch of mercenary players have been good for the culture change aspect? I'm not so sure. We've had mercenaries here before and frankly I found those types of guys to be toxic self serving. Vince Carter however would have been a great addition so I wouldn't argue against anyone who would have wanted to sign VC.

Caldwell Pope is a good player but we had sights on him for a long term situation and not a mercenary deal. Having him is irrelevant now that LeVert is clearly trending in the right direction.

I think that the Nets placing an emphasis on signing low maintenance, hard working, high character veterans as opposed to what was being advocated is a sensible approach because the kids can get ample playing time to develop, make mistakes and receive correction, while playing with guys who show them how to be professional (like Lin, Trevor Booker and DMC) on and off the court.

Would we have won more games if the Nets spent a ton of cash on getting mercenaries and being a fringe playoff team? Sure. would it help with the development of these young players? not so sure.

Either way, it has led the Nets to a crossroads moment, where they will have to make decisions but at the same time we are lot better off asset wise than we were when King got kicked to the curb. So I think Marks has handled this the right way.

[NyCeEvO]

We actually have assets right now because of what Marks and Kenny have done. I really don't see any logic in the route he proposed.

Also...lets not forget that no one wanted to play here.

If we're just talking about the ability to obtain assets, we have no idea whether taking a different path would've yielded different results, specifically not being able to obtain the principal assets we now have.

Billy drafted RHJ, so he doesn't count.

Dinwiddie was a D-League signee, who Marks had his eye on.
Allen and Levert were both picked in the 20s and they were obtained by trading vets to playoff teams who preferred making the playoffs over an 20+ 1st round pick.
D-Lo (a depreciated asset for the Lakers) was obtained by giving up an end of 1st round pick + Lopez while taking on a bad contract.

It's not like we needed a prime asset (e.g. high lotto pick, $20+mil in cap space) to do any of these moves.

Sure, A and B tier level players wouldn't sign here, but there are always mercenary players who want to sign 1 year deals or 2 year deals with a TO/PO for year 2. See KCP, VC, Tyreke Evans, et al.

To me, the only legitimate question that remains is whether our young guys would've been able to develop as much as they have over the last few years. I've always been of the belief that solid veterans can help expedite the growth process of young players in ways that throwing them out there for 35+ minutes per night won't.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is saying that they prefer having King. What I do think people are wondering is whether the path that Marks took was truly the only path to end up where we're currently at.

True indeed, Billy drafted RHJ, but would RHJ be the guy he is now if it wasn't for Marks keeping him here and being under Kenny's tutelage? I think we have to give Marks/Kenny credit in that regard since Marks' culture change includes a primary focus on development.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. What I said assumed that Markinson would still be here, so they'd still be able to develop the young guys.

If you're arguing that the players wouldn't have developed as much with veterans here as they would've on their own, it's something that cannot be proven.

However, I think we can look at teams in the present moment (e.g. Kings, Celtics) who brought in quality vets to primarily assist the coaching staff in developing the players, specifically teaching them the do's and don'ts of the NBA.

I'm of the opinion that much of the time that a player spends on the court struggling and figuring out how to improve on their own can be greatly reduced with vets who not only attract attention away from the younger ones, thereby allowing them to be eased into the NBA, but they also advise the younger players so they don't waste a lot of their time doing things that won't help them in the long run.[/quote]

Would signing a bunch of mercenary players have been good for the culture change aspect? I'm not so sure. We've had mercenaries here before and frankly I found those types of guys to be toxic self serving. Vince Carter however would have been a great addition so I wouldn't argue against anyone who would have wanted to sign VC.

Caldwell Pope is a good player but we had sights on him for a long term situation and not a mercenary deal. Having him is irrelevant now that LeVert is clearly trending in the right direction.

I think that the Nets placing an emphasis on signing low maintenance, hard working, high character veterans as opposed to what was being advocated is a sensible approach because the kids can get ample playing time to develop, make mistakes and receive correction, while playing with guys who show them how to be professional (like Lin, Trevor Booker and DMC) on and off the court.

By using the term "mercenaries", I meant "older" vets who are looking to go any place where they can contribute both on and off the floor. Guys like VC and ZBo are serviceable and collecting checks while trying to help young guys.

Lin and Booker still fit the model of mercenary signings for me, because both signed below-market deals and ultimately knew that they weren't going to be the center of attention for the long term. We only needed to give up Justin Hamilton to acquire DMC. so it's not like we used a very good asset to get him. All of these guys could've been signed/traded for in the model I'm talking about.

Would we have won more games if the Nets spent a ton of cash on getting mercenaries and being a fringe playoff team? Sure. would it help with the development of these young players? not so sure.

Either way, it has led the Nets to a crossroads moment, where they will have to make decisions but at the same time we are lot better off asset wise than we were when King got kicked to the curb. So I think Marks has handled this the right way.

Spending cap space doesn't mean much if it's not on long term contracts.

The only question is whether the young guys would've developed as well as they did. I'm of the belief that players develop the most over the offseason.
Sure, you get reps during the season, but guys make jumps in their game when they can dedicate 3+ months on addressing the weakest parts of their game. Not only would they still have that time, but having vets around enables them to ask for advice or help.

I'd much rather throw a talented rookie on a fringe playoff team so they're not expected to do too much early and end up developing bad habits that stunt their long term growth.

I don't think Kawhi Leonard would be who he has become if he wasn't a part of the Spurs regime and wasn't brought along slowly. The same goes for young guys like Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum. Generational superstars are the only ones who seem to succeed regardless of who's put around them.

[Curns13]

If we're just talking about the ability to obtain assets, we have no idea whether taking a different path would've yielded different results, specifically not being able to obtain the principal assets we now have.

Billy drafted RHJ, so he doesn't count.

Dinwiddie was a D-League signee, who Marks had his eye on.
Allen and Levert were both picked in the 20s and they were obtained by trading vets to playoff teams who preferred making the playoffs over an 20+ 1st round pick.
D-Lo (a depreciated asset for the Lakers) was obtained by giving up an end of 1st round pick + Lopez while taking on a bad contract.

It's not like we needed a prime asset (e.g. high lotto pick, $20+mil in cap space) to do any of these moves.

Sure, A and B tier level players wouldn't sign here, but there are always mercenary players who want to sign 1 year deals or 2 year deals with a TO/PO for year 2. See KCP, VC, Tyreke Evans, et al.

To me, the only legitimate question that remains is whether our young guys would've been able to develop as much as they have over the last few years. I've always been of the belief that solid veterans can help expedite the growth process of young players in ways that throwing them out there for 35+ minutes per night won't.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is saying that they prefer having King. What I do think people are wondering is whether the path that Marks took was truly the only path to end up where we're currently at.

True indeed, Billy drafted RHJ, but would RHJ be the guy he is now if it wasn't for Marks keeping him here and being under Kenny's tutelage? I think we have to give Marks/Kenny credit in that regard since Marks' culture change includes a primary focus on development.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. What I said assumed that Markinson would still be here, so they'd still be able to develop the young guys.

If you're arguing that the players wouldn't have developed as much with veterans here as they would've on their own, it's something that cannot be proven.

However, I think we can look at teams in the present moment (e.g. Kings, Celtics) who brought in quality vets to primarily assist the coaching staff in developing the players, specifically teaching them the do's and don'ts of the NBA.

I'm of the opinion that much of the time that a player spends on the court struggling and figuring out how to improve on their own can be greatly reduced with vets who not only attract attention away from the younger ones, thereby allowing them to be eased into the NBA, but they also advise the younger players so they don't waste a lot of their time doing things that won't help them in the long run.

Would signing a bunch of mercenary players have been good for the culture change aspect? I'm not so sure. We've had mercenaries here before and frankly I found those types of guys to be toxic self serving. Vince Carter however would have been a great addition so I wouldn't argue against anyone who would have wanted to sign VC.

Caldwell Pope is a good player but we had sights on him for a long term situation and not a mercenary deal. Having him is irrelevant now that LeVert is clearly trending in the right direction.

I think that the Nets placing an emphasis on signing low maintenance, hard working, high character veterans as opposed to what was being advocated is a sensible approach because the kids can get ample playing time to develop, make mistakes and receive correction, while playing with guys who show them how to be professional (like Lin, Trevor Booker and DMC) on and off the court.

By using the term "mercenaries", I meant "older" vets who are looking to go any place where they can contribute both on and off the floor. Guys like VC and ZBo are serviceable and collecting checks while trying to help young guys.

Lin and Booker still fit the model of mercenary signings for me, because both signed below-market deals and ultimately knew that they weren't going to be the center of attention for the long term. We only needed to give up Justin Hamilton to acquire DMC. so it's not like we used a very good asset to get him. All of these guys could've been signed/traded for in the model I'm talking about.

Would we have won more games if the Nets spent a ton of cash on getting mercenaries and being a fringe playoff team? Sure. would it help with the development of these young players? not so sure.

Either way, it has led the Nets to a crossroads moment, where they will have to make decisions but at the same time we are lot better off asset wise than we were when King got kicked to the curb. So I think Marks has handled this the right way.

Spending cap space doesn't mean much if it's not on long term contracts.

The only question is whether the young guys would've developed as well as they did. I'm of the belief that players develop the most over the offseason.
Sure, you get reps during the season, but guys make jumps in their game when they can dedicate 3+ months on addressing the weakest parts of their game. Not only would they still have that time, but having vets around enables them to ask for advice or help.

I'd much rather throw a talented rookie on a fringe playoff team so they're not expected to do too much early and end up developing bad habits that stunt their long term growth.

I don't think Kawhi Leonard would be who he has become if he wasn't a part of the Spurs regime and wasn't brought along slowly. The same goes for young guys like Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum. Generational superstars are the only ones who seem to succeed regardless of who's put around them.[/quote]
My take is if Marks’ goal was to treadmill for 3 years while trying to make the playoffs with vets on short term deals, NONE of our young guys would be here or be assets.

RHJ would have been buried on the bench. He only improved because he got the chance to play.

CLV wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade Thad if you are trying to make the playoffs.

Allen wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade Bogs at the deadline if you are making a playoff push.

Dlo wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade our best player and franchise leading scorer a year before his contract is up for a shot at an inconsistent 3rd year guy with no guaranteed production, who plays the same position as Lin (who I assume we would still bring here to try to get the 8th seed).

Dinwiddie either wouldn’t be here or barely would have been given the chance to play. Team trying to make the playoffs do not start D-League guys, so he would never have been given the opportunities he has received.

IMO all of our young assets either wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade away productive vets for trade picks in the middle of a playoff push, or wouldn’t have got the playing time needed to develop into what they are today. But we could have had Ivan Rabb with last years 27th pick so that’s something.

[NyCeEvO]

True indeed, Billy drafted RHJ, but would RHJ be the guy he is now if it wasn't for Marks keeping him here and being under Kenny's tutelage? I think we have to give Marks/Kenny credit in that regard since Marks' culture change includes a primary focus on development.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. What I said assumed that Markinson would still be here, so they'd still be able to develop the young guys.

If you're arguing that the players wouldn't have developed as much with veterans here as they would've on their own, it's something that cannot be proven.

However, I think we can look at teams in the present moment (e.g. Kings, Celtics) who brought in quality vets to primarily assist the coaching staff in developing the players, specifically teaching them the do's and don'ts of the NBA.

I'm of the opinion that much of the time that a player spends on the court struggling and figuring out how to improve on their own can be greatly reduced with vets who not only attract attention away from the younger ones, thereby allowing them to be eased into the NBA, but they also advise the younger players so they don't waste a lot of their time doing things that won't help them in the long run.

Would signing a bunch of mercenary players have been good for the culture change aspect? I'm not so sure. We've had mercenaries here before and frankly I found those types of guys to be toxic self serving. Vince Carter however would have been a great addition so I wouldn't argue against anyone who would have wanted to sign VC.

Caldwell Pope is a good player but we had sights on him for a long term situation and not a mercenary deal. Having him is irrelevant now that LeVert is clearly trending in the right direction.

I think that the Nets placing an emphasis on signing low maintenance, hard working, high character veterans as opposed to what was being advocated is a sensible approach because the kids can get ample playing time to develop, make mistakes and receive correction, while playing with guys who show them how to be professional (like Lin, Trevor Booker and DMC) on and off the court.

By using the term "mercenaries", I meant "older" vets who are looking to go any place where they can contribute both on and off the floor. Guys like VC and ZBo are serviceable and collecting checks while trying to help young guys.

Lin and Booker still fit the model of mercenary signings for me, because both signed below-market deals and ultimately knew that they weren't going to be the center of attention for the long term. We only needed to give up Justin Hamilton to acquire DMC. so it's not like we used a very good asset to get him. All of these guys could've been signed/traded for in the model I'm talking about.

Would we have won more games if the Nets spent a ton of cash on getting mercenaries and being a fringe playoff team? Sure. would it help with the development of these young players? not so sure.

Either way, it has led the Nets to a crossroads moment, where they will have to make decisions but at the same time we are lot better off asset wise than we were when King got kicked to the curb. So I think Marks has handled this the right way.

Spending cap space doesn't mean much if it's not on long term contracts.

The only question is whether the young guys would've developed as well as they did. I'm of the belief that players develop the most over the offseason.
Sure, you get reps during the season, but guys make jumps in their game when they can dedicate 3+ months on addressing the weakest parts of their game. Not only would they still have that time, but having vets around enables them to ask for advice or help.

I'd much rather throw a talented rookie on a fringe playoff team so they're not expected to do too much early and end up developing bad habits that stunt their long term growth.

I don't think Kawhi Leonard would be who he has become if he wasn't a part of the Spurs regime and wasn't brought along slowly. The same goes for young guys like Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum. Generational superstars are the only ones who seem to succeed regardless of who's put around them.

My take is if Marks’ goal was to treadmill for 3 years while trying to make the playoffs with vets on short term deals, NONE of our young guys would be here or be assets.

RHJ would have been buried on the bench. He only improved because he got the chance to play.

CLV wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade Thad if you are trying to make the playoffs.

Allen wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade Bogs at the deadline if you are making a playoff push.

Dlo wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade our best player and franchise leading scorer a year before his contract is up for a shot at an inconsistent 3rd year guy with no guaranteed production, who plays the same position as Lin (who I assume we would still bring here to try to get the 8th seed).

Dinwiddie either wouldn’t be here or barely would have been given the chance to play. Team trying to make the playoffs do not start D-League guys, so he would never have been given the opportunities he has received.

IMO all of our young assets either wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade away productive vets for trade picks in the middle of a playoff push, or wouldn’t have got the playing time needed to develop into what they are today. But we could have had Ivan Rabb with last years 27th pick so that’s something.

The purpose is not to make the playoffs at all costs. It's to obtain assets while not stripping the roster bare of all real talent, which is what happened.

This is basically what we did this year.

There's a big difference between being Hawks-level bad and Lakers-level bad. With the former, you don't care about the product you're putting out there, whereas the latter has young talent getting a lot playing time mixed in with vets who know what they're doing.

[Curns13]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. What I said assumed that Markinson would still be here, so they'd still be able to develop the young guys.

If you're arguing that the players wouldn't have developed as much with veterans here as they would've on their own, it's something that cannot be proven.

However, I think we can look at teams in the present moment (e.g. Kings, Celtics) who brought in quality vets to primarily assist the coaching staff in developing the players, specifically teaching them the do's and don'ts of the NBA.

I'm of the opinion that much of the time that a player spends on the court struggling and figuring out how to improve on their own can be greatly reduced with vets who not only attract attention away from the younger ones, thereby allowing them to be eased into the NBA, but they also advise the younger players so they don't waste a lot of their time doing things that won't help them in the long run.

By using the term "mercenaries", I meant "older" vets who are looking to go any place where they can contribute both on and off the floor. Guys like VC and ZBo are serviceable and collecting checks while trying to help young guys.

Lin and Booker still fit the model of mercenary signings for me, because both signed below-market deals and ultimately knew that they weren't going to be the center of attention for the long term. We only needed to give up Justin Hamilton to acquire DMC. so it's not like we used a very good asset to get him. All of these guys could've been signed/traded for in the model I'm talking about.

Spending cap space doesn't mean much if it's not on long term contracts.

The only question is whether the young guys would've developed as well as they did. I'm of the belief that players develop the most over the offseason.
Sure, you get reps during the season, but guys make jumps in their game when they can dedicate 3+ months on addressing the weakest parts of their game. Not only would they still have that time, but having vets around enables them to ask for advice or help.

I'd much rather throw a talented rookie on a fringe playoff team so they're not expected to do too much early and end up developing bad habits that stunt their long term growth.

I don't think Kawhi Leonard would be who he has become if he wasn't a part of the Spurs regime and wasn't brought along slowly. The same goes for young guys like Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum. Generational superstars are the only ones who seem to succeed regardless of who's put around them.

My take is if Marks’ goal was to treadmill for 3 years while trying to make the playoffs with vets on short term deals, NONE of our young guys would be here or be assets.

RHJ would have been buried on the bench. He only improved because he got the chance to play.

CLV wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade Thad if you are trying to make the playoffs.

Allen wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade Bogs at the deadline if you are making a playoff push.

Dlo wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade our best player and franchise leading scorer a year before his contract is up for a shot at an inconsistent 3rd year guy with no guaranteed production, who plays the same position as Lin (who I assume we would still bring here to try to get the 8th seed).

Dinwiddie either wouldn’t be here or barely would have been given the chance to play. Team trying to make the playoffs do not start D-League guys, so he would never have been given the opportunities he has received.

IMO all of our young assets either wouldn’t be here because you don’t trade away productive vets for trade picks in the middle of a playoff push, or wouldn’t have got the playing time needed to develop into what they are today. But we could have had Ivan Rabb with last years 27th pick so that’s something.

The purpose is not to make the playoffs at all costs. It's to obtain assets while not stripping the roster bare of all real talent, which is what happened.

This is basically what we did this year.

There's a big difference between being Hawks-level bad and Lakers-level bad. With the former, you don't care about the product you're putting out there, whereas the latter has young talent getting a lot playing time mixed in with vets who know what they're doing.

But the Lakers are only where they are because they completely bottomed out like the Hawks, 21 and 17 wins in consecutive years from 2014-16. Lonza, Ingram and Dlo were all 2nd picks, Randle was the 7th. The Lakers were able to add vets and be competitive this year because of the talent they acquired when there were awful.

Where would this young talent have come from if we didn’t trade off our vets?

[SpeedyG]

Yup. NY absolutely nailed it right on the head.

It's difficult to say which way would work/would not work since reality isn't linear.

But what if Lin didn't get hurt? We were a much better team when he played than when he was out.

Caris too, was a surprise pick. Many had him as a 2nd round pick. what if he lasted to the spot where we had Whitehead without trading Young?

Maybe Rondae doesn't develop into a 4 because of Young being here, but what if...instead of trying to be a 4 he prioritized a three point shot first?

DMC is a great example of a veteran leader which has helped this team while not taking away from the young guys. Same with Booker while he was here.

Dinwiddie and Joe were low risk signings that we could have gotten regardless.

The focus on "upside" also made us chase guys like Crabbe and Johnson and porter...what if instead of those guys we went after someone like Redick (who probably would have signed here if not for the Russell trade).

We would honestly have been no worse off than we are now, except without the cap commitments to Mozgov/Crabbe, have prime money for 2019/2020 with no looming extension to guys were not 100% sold on, and our own pick coming back in 2019.

All the while not helping a division rival build a potential young cornerstone.

Our team has been built on grit...and that still could have been the same without a complete gutting of the roster and taking on contracts to acquire possible talent.

Overall I think Sean has done an admirable job of adding talent, but his success has also put us in somewhat interesting scenario in which we might be locked into long term commitments before we are really ready for it.

[Prokorov]

Read on Twitter

sounds like Sean Marks might be ready to trust the process

Marks and Kenny have trusted the process since day 1. Thank god Prokorov is letting Marks be patient and thank god marks (so far) has had the discipline to do it the right way and not care about wins at this point.

This was always a 6 year plan or so

1) hire your staff, which includes non-basketball personal as well to create an infrustructure to get players to interact with the community. not just building the team bottom up but the fanbase bottom up. Putting in place the development and training staff, an analutics driven approach, and bringing in the right guys to create an enviornment of hard work and community outreach

2) aquire young talent with potential, develop that potential, and continue to build the foundation.

3) make decisions on your young talent, continue to develop them while aquiring assets.

4) take the first baby step towards shifting to where wins matter. develop your guys as they enter the beggining of their primes. develop your first lottery pick during the rebuild. maybe add some established talent for the first time

5) develop your 2nd year lotto guy and your second lotto pick, make decisions on caris/allen types for extensions. look to be a fringe playoff contender, .500 team in the process

6) Complete shift to winning as the focus with development always happening in tandem with that but not getting in the way of wins. Look to begin a long run of being a perrenial playoff team. you now have 3 guys you drafted in the lottery and your first picks like caris and allen and rhj hitting their prime.

[Prokorov]

Read on Twitter

sounds like Sean Marks might be ready to trust the process

He keeps everyone guessing lol nobody knows what this guy is thinking.

i dont know, i think fans just dont want to accept it.

yeah after year he says its a long ways to go, winning isnt the focus.

[Prokorov]

I think 1-11 (including Mozgov, Cunningham) are pretty likely to remain. Okafor, Stauskas and even Acy and Whitehead, seem less certain to me.

Ball handlers
Russell, LeVert, Lin, Dinwiddie

Wings
Crabbe, Harris

Forwards
RHJ, DMC, Cunningham

Centers
Jarrett Allen, Mozgov

Acy is a stretch 4 and by the numbers our best defender last season. also cheap and a leader/vet. id be shocked if he isnt back

[Prokorov]

I'm glad to read that Kenny knows how bad our defense is and our "conservative" approach will remain only until we have the right personnel. At the same time, I do wonder why he believes we need better personnel for things as simple as contesting midrange shots with a hand up by our big men.

I understand that he may not want to contest those shots all of the time, fearing that the would-be shooter will instead pumpfake and drive to the basket for a more efficient layup, but you won't get that if your big men at least take a a full or halfstep toward the shooter and keep their feet planted to the ground regardless of whether they shoot it or not.

Maybe because the guys do try on defense but are still lacking. The players they bring in should be more athletic because of this.
I've said it before when your starting point guard is a bad defender and the face of the franchise you're not going to be a defensive team.

PG defense is the least important of any position by far. this is unanimous among the analytic community and even shows up to be the case statistically if you look at RPM or RAPM. the non analytic community also buts little value on PG defense.

your bigs defense is by far the biggest factor follow by your wings. as much as i love allen and how he blocked shots he was poor as where all our centers outside of when acy got minutes. our wings were bad too particularly russell and levert.

[Prokorov]

I'm glad to read that Kenny knows how bad our defense is and our "conservative" approach will remain only until we have the right personnel. At the same time, I do wonder why he believes we need better personnel for things as simple as contesting midrange shots with a hand up by our big men.

I understand that he may not want to contest those shots all of the time, fearing that the would-be shooter will instead pumpfake and drive to the basket for a more efficient layup, but you won't get that if your big men at least take a a full or halfstep toward the shooter and keep their feet planted to the ground regardless of whether they shoot it or not.

Yep. we know that is all on Kenny because the same thing we watch the big men do this year was the same thing that Brook was doing last year. That's by design and it needs to change.

Watch Golden State's defense. We need to be doing it like that. They really don't have these all world athletes on their roster but their team defense, rotations, traps and defense versus the pick and roll looks so crisp while we look all out of sorts once someone gets screened. If I'm going to be critical of Kenny, it is in two areas: in game adjustment/rotational decisions and his entire philosophy to defense.

yeah, its hard to play that style with bad defenders especially at our pace and if you dont do it well you can develop real bad habits.

i disagree warriors dont have athletes. McGee, Green, Iggy are all good athletes and steph is quick qith a super high iq

[Prokorov]

Maybe because the guys do try on defense but are still lacking. The players they bring in should be more athletic because of this.
I've said it before when your starting point guard is a bad defender and the face of the franchise you're not going to be a defensive team.

Let's not rehash this, because it was debunked overwhelmingly. There are teams in the playoffs right now who have subpar to bad defenders as their starting PGs and their defenses are some of the best ones in the league. It's a mix of personnel and team defensive philosophy, period.

Philly with a "big" lineup of Simmons, Saric,and Ilyasova(!) steps out aggressively, yet a lineup of Acy/Cunningham sits back.

Philly has been one of the better defensive teams as far as pressure is concerned and their roster aren't exactly filled with what u call shut down defenders.

There is zero reason why our guys (especially with starting lineup of Rondae DMC and allen) can't play aggressively.

This staff takes analytics too far into the extreme. go and watch the playoffs and everyone...Every team...shoots mid-range shots!

FG% efficiency is one thing, but it's also another to take good shots.

The three point shot is the great equalizer, especially if you have good shooters, but every possession is critical (especially in playoff) and u just can't hope that at some point you're going to get hot from downtown in order to climb back after being down double digits because you kept jacking up, and missing threes.

Sometimes chipping away at it by taking wide open mids is fine.

there is a reason. because wins dont matter right now and you are focusing on certain things as you go. i think eventually, further on, we will do more trapping. you play agrressive and its easy for bad habits to form. gotta do it the right way

[Prokorov]

Gotta love that kind of job security

Eh maybe we will try to win games this year or next year

Wink wink nudge nudge even though I've been here 3 years it's still Billy's fault

What exactly do you want them to do? That kind of job security is a good thing, or else he'd probably be trying to sign every overpriced older vet he could find and trading away most of our youth for semi-stars as well, striving to win 37 to 44 games for a few years.

things that would have made sense

signing veterans when you don't have draft picks makes sense
then you tank and develop when you have draft picks

i can judge based on the comments here no one is happy with the roster and are ready to trade a guy we would have jumped for joy for to have a chance at drafting dlo how does this strategy make sense if they trade dlo and cut bait with rhj caris etc.

if someone doesnt project to be an allstar you dont pay him all-star money. Dlo looks to be the next monte ellis. a good player, but not one worth the max. Caris is a ways off still. RHJ is a keeper at the right price.

the goal is to be good for a long long time. and to do that you need to make smart decisions based on those projections vs. cost. this isnt about making the playoffs. its about making the players every year for 10+ years and having an infrustructure where you can keep on charinging as guys leave/retire/get traded.

[Prokorov]

things that would have made sense

signing veterans when you don't have draft picks makes sense
then you tank and develop when you have draft picks

i can judge based on the comments here no one is happy with the roster and are ready to trade a guy we would have jumped for joy for to have a chance at drafting dlo how does this strategy make sense if they trade dlo and cut bait with rhj caris etc.

The point of the GM and the vision of Marks and co. specifically is not to make the fans feel less bad about awful moves the GM prior to him made at the cost of long term sustainability and growth.

It's not like he could have went out and signed LeBron and Millsap and Al Horford and Gordon Hayward and Mike Conley, anyway. These guys did not want to come to this situation at any cost. They found huge contracts in good to great situations.

Again, I do not see what you wanted him to do? He has at least acquired 2 kids who are obvious long term pieces and a few others who are at least assets and the tank could be on for 2019 and a bunch of late draft picks.

Instead you wanted him to max out Marvin Williams and Rondo and kept Thad Young and been the most competitive 33 win 11th seed in the East! Or at least that's how it feels. Because there isn't a realistic scenario out there where we could have even been a 35 to 42 win treadmill for 3 years. Even the over the hill max guys found those identical to better max deals elsewhere, there haven't been good player salary dumps out there for years and none of the 2nd fiddles wanted to come here either.

Eh, I would have personally done similar to what he suggested. There's always a discussion of tank vs treadmill, and Marks was basically given a free excuse to treadmill all while building a culture here with hardworking veteran players.

As long as he didn't hamstrung us for 2019 when we got our pick back, I don't see how he couldn't have built a fringe playoff team (which quite frankly i think was king's plan, though I would not have trusted him to execute it).

I don't think it's no coincidence that year 1 Kenny/Marks Nets was often compared to Magic-led by Armstrong and Harpring types.

Why would a treadmill with veterans be better then young players developing at a rapid pace?

[Prokorov]

If we're just talking about the ability to obtain assets, we have no idea whether taking a different path would've yielded different results, specifically not being able to obtain the principal assets we now have.

Billy drafted RHJ, so he doesn't count.

Dinwiddie was a D-League signee, who Marks had his eye on.
Allen and Levert were both picked in the 20s and they were obtained by trading vets to playoff teams who preferred making the playoffs over an 20+ 1st round pick.
D-Lo (a depreciated asset for the Lakers) was obtained by giving up an end of 1st round pick + Lopez while taking on a bad contract.

It's not like we needed a prime asset (e.g. high lotto pick, $20+mil in cap space) to do any of these moves.

Sure, A and B tier level players wouldn't sign here, but there are always mercenary players who want to sign 1 year deals or 2 year deals with a TO/PO for year 2. See KCP, VC, Tyreke Evans, et al.

To me, the only legitimate question that remains is whether our young guys would've been able to develop as much as they have over the last few years. I've always been of the belief that solid veterans can help expedite the growth process of young players in ways that throwing them out there for 35+ minutes per night won't.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is saying that they prefer having King. What I do think people are wondering is whether the path that Marks took was truly the only path to end up where we're currently at.

Well, i think at the very least we wouldnt have Caris or Allen if another GM who was looking to go with vets was brought in. since we traded vets for those picks and Caris was kind of a guy not expected to go where he did although most gms probably take allen, i dont think we;d have that pick.

also, the last think markinson does is throw young guys out for 35+ minutes. they are very calculated in how they get these young guys minutes.

also, you arent factoring in that marks hired atkinson, the best development guy in the business. does another gm do that or do they go with a hollins type to go with their veterans?

[kamaze]

Read on Twitter

Trading a player on the roster for a draft pick would be skipping a step.

[kamaze]

Guys want to argue the point guards defense isn't important because of analytics then say they don't have good defenders, which one is it?

[NyCeEvO]

What exactly do you want them to do? That kind of job security is a good thing, or else he'd probably be trying to sign every overpriced older vet he could find and trading away most of our youth for semi-stars as well, striving to win 37 to 44 games for a few years.

things that would have made sense

signing veterans when you don't have draft picks makes sense
then you tank and develop when you have draft picks

i can judge based on the comments here no one is happy with the roster and are ready to trade a guy we would have jumped for joy for to have a chance at drafting dlo how does this strategy make sense if they trade dlo and cut bait with rhj caris etc.

if someone doesnt project to be an allstar you dont pay him all-star money. Dlo looks to be the next monte ellis. a good player, but not one worth the max. Caris is a ways off still. RHJ is a keeper at the right price.

the goal is to be good for a long long time. and to do that you need to make smart decisions based on those projections vs. cost. this isnt about making the playoffs. its about making the players every year for 10+ years and having an infrustructure where you can keep on charinging as guys leave/retire/get traded.

While I wouldn't be shocked to see DLo get traded, all signs point to us retaining for the season and probably letting him reach RFA.

Do you think we should trade him in the offseason or let him hit RFA and make the market set his value?

IMO, I don't think he's highly valued by other teams. I doubt we'd get anything better than a top-20 1st pick. It might be better to keep him for the season and help us get some Ws than trade him now.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk