RealGM

Behold my latest brainstorm, please share your feedback!

https://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker/saved_trade/7564263

ATL trades Capela/Hunter/Okongwu for Gobert/Thomas/Sharpe
The Hawks consolidate assets to upgrade in the middle.
Young, Bogdanovic, Huerter, Collins, Gobert
Cooper, Thomas, Gallinari, Johnson, Sharpe


BRK trades Curry/Thomas/Sharpe for Clarkson/O'Neale/Okongwu
The Nets absorb salary for better fitting rotation role players.
Irving, Harris, Durant, Simmons, Okongwu
Mills, Brown, Clarkson, O'Neale, Claxton


UTA trades Gobert/Clarkson/O'Neale for Capela/Hunter/Curry
The Jazz retool around Donovan while trimming payroll.
Conley, Mitchell, Bogdanovic, Hunter, Capela
Curry, Alexander-Walker, Gay, Paschalle, Azubuike

I'm ok with that trade and actually will support it if we be able to get it done.

As for roster. I dont see neither Brown or Nic back.

Nor a Clarkson fan tbh

CalamityX12 wrote:Nor a Clarkson fan tbh

Why not? He destroys us every time we play against him

Sounds interesting, altho I'd be sad to see Sharpe moved on from so quickly.

Supposedly he had no 3pt shot at all coming out of college, but it looks like he's been working on it, and you can imagine how useful he'd be as a strong rebounder, interior threat with even an average jumper. One with great strength and durability, things that Claxton lacks.

Even if his jumper doesn't improve much, if he merely keeps developing and getting more minutes, he should have value for certain teams and be a stronger trade chip than he is right now. I mean, I'd hope so, anyway.

This also kind of refers back to the issue of "just what are the Nets, anyway?" Are we 100%, completely a win-now team, with all assets sacrificed towards that end, or do we at least retain some development pieces for the future?

gigantes wrote:Sounds interesting, altho I'd be sad to see Sharpe moved on from so quickly.

Supposedly he had no 3pt shot at all coming out of college, but it looks like he's been working on it, and you can imagine how useful he'd be as a strong rebounder, interior threat with even an average jumper. One with great strength and durability, things that Claxton lacks.

Even if his jumper doesn't improve much, if he merely keeps developing and getting more minutes, he should have value for certain teams and be a stronger trade chip than he is right now. I mean, I'd hope so, anyway.

I feel like the Nets' hope for Cam and Day'Ron is a sunk cost fallacy. I pegged then before the draft, and felt that neither would make sense as role players next to aging stars. They could be good mentees, and possibly become assume future stars' role players. But the latest postseason showed us, roster spots clogged with players who can't play beside their star teammates are deadweight. Thomas and Sharpe are 2 years away from being 2 years away, IMO.

gigantes wrote:This also kind of refers back to the issue of "just what are the Nets, anyway?" Are we 100%, completely a win-now team, with all assets sacrificed towards that end, or do we at least retain some development pieces for the future?

I don't think that any franchise should ever bankrupt their youth assets and mortgage their future in order to contend. No matter how dominant you can make your current year team, you've got like a 30% chance to win it all, at most. You never know what injury, dissension or sea change in the NBA could leave you on the outside looking in. This deal would send out our 2 recent picks, but neither of the PHI 1sts. In exchange, we get not only 2 elite veteran role players, but one true young building block. Okongwu makes sense here as a rim protector, lob finisher, pick setter, screen switcher and general junkyard dog. We need all those things. He also shows the upside of a modern elite bigman, a la Bam, Time Lord and others. We need one of those in the worst way.

ecuhus1981 wrote:

gigantes wrote:Sounds interesting, altho I'd be sad to see Sharpe moved on from so quickly.

Supposedly he had no 3pt shot at all coming out of college, but it looks like he's been working on it, and you can imagine how useful he'd be as a strong rebounder, interior threat with even an average jumper. One with great strength and durability, things that Claxton lacks.

Even if his jumper doesn't improve much, if he merely keeps developing and getting more minutes, he should have value for certain teams and be a stronger trade chip than he is right now. I mean, I'd hope so, anyway.

I feel like the Nets' hope for Cam and Day'Ron is a sunk cost fallacy. I pegged then before the draft, and felt that neither would make sense as role players next to aging stars. They could be good mentees, and possibly become assume future stars' role players. But the latest postseason showed us, roster spots clogged with players who can't play beside their star teammates are deadweight. Thomas and Sharpe are 2 years away from being 2 years away, IMO.

gigantes wrote:This also kind of refers back to the issue of "just what are the Nets, anyway?" Are we 100%, completely a win-now team, with all assets sacrificed towards that end, or do we at least retain some development pieces for the future?

I don't think that any franchise should ever bankrupt their youth assets and mortgage their future in order to contend. No matter how dominant you can make your current year team, you've got like a 30% chance to win it all, at most. You never know what injury, dissension or sea change in the NBA could leave you on the outside looking in. This deal would send out our 2 recent picks, but neither of the PHI 1sts. In exchange, we get not only 2 elite veteran role players, but one true young building block. Okongwu makes sense here as a rim protector, lob finisher, pick setter, screen switcher and general junkyard dog. We need all those things. He also shows the upside of a modern elite bigman, a la Bam, Time Lord and others. We need one of those in the worst way.

I frankly don't know as much you and many others about other players around the league, but on the whole, I don't disagree.

I'll even go further by saying that I'm not sure Thomas is ever going to be much more than a flawed, inefficient ''instant offense' player that may or may not hang around the NBA.

Your '30% theory' sounds about right to me, except that I have little confidence in the type of system here. The type of system that normally allows good teams to contend on a regular basis due to being built the right way, as run by an elite coach. This is moreso a Frankenstein team overseen by a bumbling coach who falls in line with the pressure the stars put on his boss. To me it only works along a couple narrow paths, but predictably falls short in most ways.

I'd even go so far as to say I wouldn't care that much if this mess wins a chip, because it would likely just be around a single chip in the end, with years of assets and flexibility sunk it to grasping it. After that, it's once again back to the drawing board.

Frankly I'd rather just a well-built system naturally producing its own talent and stars, that in the end will contend on a consistent basis and not get in to these Marks-style hand-wringing situations in which the fanbase is increasingly angry and distraught when we underachieve. It's simply not fun IMO, altho yes, stating it above in such a way is a bit simplified and a bit naive. But still.

ecuhus1981 wrote:

gigantes wrote:This also kind of refers back to the issue of "just what are the Nets, anyway?" Are we 100%, completely a win-now team, with all assets sacrificed towards that end, or do we at least retain some development pieces for the future?

I don't think that any franchise should ever bankrupt their youth assets and mortgage their future in order to contend. No matter how dominant you can make your current year team, you've got like a 30% chance to win it all, at most. You never know what injury, dissension or sea change in the NBA could leave you on the outside looking in...

Oh, and talk about an exclamation point on what you just said, in terms of this season's champs.

Me, I'm as sick and tired of the Dubs as anyone else, yet I feel like the Dubs just proved masses of us wrong about a number of things.

System & excellent leadership before talent.
(altho of course, good talent is always necessary)

This is how it works in the real world, Sean Marks.