Is Billy King a good or bad GM?

[Paradise]

Jerking Brook Lopez around for months was just embarrassing. I wouldn't have blamed Brook if he had asked to be traded. It was disgusting.

You have got to be kidding. This is where the Billy stuff gets to be irrational and petty. Yes, everything else about him is about spot on but come on now, jerking Brook around? He came off a year where he was only playing 5 games. Dwight Howard was an MVP candidate, you have every right to do whatever you can to get Dwight and I'm pretty sure management was pushing for Dwight more than anyone. Brook being jerked around helped him man up and actually play all-star basketball.

[jeff1624]

Jerking Brook Lopez around for months was just embarrassing. I wouldn't have blamed Brook if he had asked to be traded. It was disgusting.

You have got to be kidding. This is where the Billy stuff gets to be irrational and petty. Yes, everything else about him is about spot on but come on now, jerking Brook around? He came off a year where he was only playing 5 games. Dwight Howard was an MVP candidate, you have every right to do whatever you can to get Dwight and I'm pretty sure management was pushing for Dwight more than anyone. Brook being jerked around helped him man up and actually play all-star basketball.

I didn't criticize King's wanting to trade for Dwight. That would be stupid. Who wouldn't want to trade for the best Center in the league. I'm criticizing the way he handled it all. Brook spent 9 months (including his own free agency) in limbo and the only times his name was mentioned was to talk about Dwight. King should have kept it all in house and should have refused to even acknowledge any Dwight talk with the media.

[Hello Brooklyn]

I could give a **** that Lopez was being jerked around. If we had a chance to get Dwight, I will jerk him around all day.

Whats he gonna do about it?
He still seems to like it here, and is flourishing in our system. So I have no sympathy for Lopez being jerked around for the 2nd best player in the NBA at the time.

As far as the Johnson trade, the league forced us to add that extra pick. So you guys can keep pretending like that didn't happen, but it did.

So yea the Wallace trade and Wallace resigning were terrible moves. Moves we shouldn't have made.
And no I don't think there is any chance we get James Harden. But I still realize its a bad move.

Why do I not care that much? Because Wallace ended up yielding KG/PP. And to me this Nets team is better than anything else we could have gotten.

[Hello Brooklyn]

And the Murphy trade was not a big deal. Low risk high reward.

Nearly all of his other free agent signing have panned out. And the Humphries contract was also genius.

[DrazenForThree]

Why do I not care that much? Because Wallace ended up yielding KG/PP. And to me this Nets team is better than anything else we could have gotten.

no, it isnt... in fact, its about as poor as we could have done.

[therealbig3]

Never mind the fact that your lovefest for King occurred well before the KG/PP trade, when we were clearly a treadmill team that had already hit our ceiling and didn't seem capable of getting any better, I like how King pulling off that trade isn't lucky, but Thorn was lucky basically his entire time here.

That's just rich.

[jeff1624]

As far as the Johnson trade, the league forced us to add that extra pick. So you guys can keep pretending like that didn't happen, but it did.

Source?

Why do I not care that much? Because Wallace ended up yielding KG/PP. And to me this Nets team is better than anything else we could have gotten.

Oh... Wallace was the reason we were able to trade for Pierce and Garnett, not the infinite amount of picks we sent out? We acquired Garnett and Pierce despite Wallace's contract. And if we had traded a top 6 pick along with the other 40 picks we sent out for Garnett and Pierce It would have been a TERRIBLE trade.

[Hello Brooklyn]

As far as the Johnson trade, the league forced us to add that extra pick. So you guys can keep pretending like that didn't happen, but it did.

Source?

Why do I not care that much? Because Wallace ended up yielding KG/PP. And to me this Nets team is better than anything else we could have gotten.

Oh... Wallace was the reason we were able to trade for Pierce and Garnett, not the infinite amount of picks we sent out? We acquired Garnett and Pierce despite Wallace's contract. And if we had traded a top 6 pick along with the other 40 picks we sent out for Garnett and Pierce It would have been a TERRIBLE trade.

I remember it being all over Netsdaily. Pretty sure the Houston pick was added later and not part of the original deal.

Even if I'm wrong, its still such a stupid thing to argue about. We literally traded away a pick that was 90% gonna be a bench player. First round picks outside of the lottery rarely end up becoming Joe Johnson type players.

Wallace was not the reason, but he was still part of it. So King basically undid the bad of the Wallace trade by taking away that bad contract after just 1 year. So now I'm not that pissed. Without Wallace, we are unable to make that trade.

Look I don't like trading a 6 pick for Wallace. Or even for KG/Pierce. But at the end of the day I don't care too much about that pick, because I don't believe it was gonna yield us Howard or Harden like you guys pretend is a foregone conclusion.

Not every GM is going to get everything right and make all the right moves.

If were keeping score, King is coming out ahead. I don't think a ****y GM would be capable of bringing D-Will,Johnson,KG,Pierce,AK47 is 2 years.

He mad one bad move. and you guys choose to ignore all the other great things he did because you think it was "bad value" to get JJ for a poo poo platter and getting D-Will for Derrick ****ing Favors.

[DrazenForThree]

I remember it being all over Netsdaily. Pretty sure the Houston pick was added later and not part of the original deal.

Searched all over netsdaily, cant find this even speculated on.

Even if I'm wrong, its still such a stupid thing to argue about. We literally traded away a pick that was 90% gonna be a bench player. First round picks outside of the lottery rarely end up becoming Joe Johnson type players.

Again, its not about the player, its about the asset. we would have an extra pick at our disposal. For a team with no picks and no young players, draft picks are extremely valuable.

Wallace was not the reason, but he was still part of it. So King basically undid the bad of the Wallace trade by taking away that bad contract after just 1 year. So now I'm not that pissed. Without Wallace, we are unable to make that trade.

If you think "the bad part" of the wallace trade was the contract, you are sorely mistaken.

Look I don't like trading a 6 pick for Wallace. Or even for KG/Pierce. But at the end of the day I don't care too much about that pick, because I don't believe it was gonna yield us Howard or Harden like you guys pretend is a foregone conclusion.

it may not have, but regardless of the case, it would have yielded us a very good player, whether we used it or traded it. a top 6 pick in a very good draft is super valuable

Not every GM is going to get everything right and make all the right moves.

If were keeping score, King is coming out ahead. I don't think a ****y GM would be capable of bringing D-Will,Johnson,KG,Pierce,AK47 is 2 years.

Sure they would, case in point, king is a *****y GM, and he got them. and again, you are looking at it in a vacuum instead of looking at it from what the reality was.

No GM in pro sports(forget basketball) wouldnt fail to turn the assets king inheritted into what you see. and most would have done better.

He mad one bad move. and you guys choose to ignore all the other great things he did because you think it was "bad value" to get JJ for a poo poo platter and getting D-Will for Derrick ****ing Favors.

No, he didnt make "one bad move". one bad move is like wasting your MLE on travis outlaw. thats a bad move. Trading a projected top 3 pick in a stacked draft and a chance at Anthony davis for 3 months or gerald wallace is a catastrophic move.

While joe johnson the player is a solid addition, that, also was a horrific trade. for get that we gave up picks, to not get a first rounder from atlanta for getting them out of salary cap siberia is just unforgiveable. The johnson trade isnt on the same level as the wallace deal, but its one of the 5 biggest overpays of the past 5 years

[Hello Brooklyn]

I'm just done arguing this. Ive made my points.

I personally do not think giving up one Houston lottery protected pick, for a 6 time all-star and the 3rd best SG at the NBA at the time, is a big deal. Yet you guys are creaming your pants over it. No I don't think its a big deal. People trade for overpaid players all the time. It doesn't mean that they are somehow going to give up nothing, if its a quality player.

I think giving up a lottery pick, uber-bust Derrick Favors, and Devin "scrub" Harris is good value. You guys seem to disagree.

I think the KG/Pierce trade was an amazing move. Quit possibly the best trade in Nets history. Literally taking a pile of ****and turning it into gold. You guys somehow also think it was an overpay.

King free agents have all been good. Blatche, CJ Watson, Reggie Evans, all great value.
Even things like the Humphries contract were great moves.

And yes I didn't like the Gerald Wallace trade. But the idea that without it we would have gotten James Harden is just so idealistic and absurd, I don't even want to discuss it.

The A very firing and Kidd hiring were also great moves.

But anyway, I've given my opinions. Unless someone wants to bring a different perspective in this thread, I think I'm done.

[DrazenForThree]

I'm just done arguing this. Ive made my points.

I personally do not think giving up one Houston lottery protected pick, for a 6 time all-star and the 3rd best SG at the NBA at the time, is a big deal. Yet you guys are creaming your pants over it.

a first round pick in the teens for a 6 time all-star isnt a bad trade.

a first round pick for a player with the leagues largest, most unmoveable contract is a terrible trade.

we should have at the very least not given up any picks or picks swaps, and probably should have gotten something pickwise in return. I really dont understand why you cany grasp this as it is really simple and universally understood. maybe a better analogy.

Lets say someone is moving cross country and they have a yard sale saying "moving to california, everything must go."

Now while $1000 dollar might be a very fair price for their brand new couch that would look great in your house, its kind of foolish to pay them full sticker price for the couch when they are moving today, cant take it with them, and desperate to get rid of it.

now, to make it even more of a paralell, lets say you are the only person there at the yard sale, since there was a giant storm coming and no one else was willing to come bid on the couch.

king paid full price for the couch, then threw in another 100 bucks just because.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

everything must go

If you're willing to say that the eagerness to sell impacts the transaction price, would you admit that a perceived necessity to buy that much quicker does so as well?

I'll let youse guys hassle over the overall merits of Mr. King but I don't see how both sides of the coin shouldn't be looked at.

[DrazenForThree]

everything must go

If you're willing to say that the eagerness to sell impacts the transaction price, would you admit that a perceived necessity to buy that much quicker does so as well?

I'll let youse guys hassle over the overall merits of Mr. King but I don't see how both sides of the coin shouldn't be looked at.

they were in a much worse spot then we were. sure, we were buyers, and needed a playoff team heading to brooklyn. but there were 25+ other teams we could have traded with. we had assets. we had 20 million in expiring contracts and multiple first round picks.

the hawks had no other options. only 3 or 4 teams even had the cap space or expiring to take on johnsons contract, and we were the ONLY team that could take him on, had expirings, were in win now mode, and had an ownership willing to foot the bill.

Johnson was a 32 year old making 22M a year for 4 years. while a good player, he isnt worth near that.

-Since he is 32, he is only of use to a win now team.
-since he is due 4/80+, he isnt attractive to small market teams
-since he makes 22m a season, he is only attractive to teams over the cap and willing to pay the luxury or with tons of cap room

we were the only team even willing consider trading for johnson. his contract was unmoveable, yet we were willing to bail ferry out. it was a horrific overpay to include a pick, and getting shafted not to get one in return.

the hawks, to trade johnson to any other team would have needed to take back at least one bad contract and include a pick/young players going the other way.

[TheMightyHumph]

And the Murphy trade was not a big deal. Low risk high reward.

Nearly all of his other free agent signing have panned out. And the Humphries contract was also genius.

Low risk, high reward? What was the reward?

The deal for Okur was great too, wasn't it.

And your statement on Humphries contract is pure BS.

[Hello Brooklyn]

The Murphy contract was easily tradable and was traded in case he didn't pan out

The Humphries contract was genuis. It was designed tohelp us make anotheanother huge trade when we were over thw cap.

[DrazenForThree]

The Murphy contract was easily tradable and was traded in case he didn't pan out

his point wasnt that it wasnt tradeable, his point was there was no "reward"

The Humphries contract was genuis. It was designed tohelp us make anotheanother huge trade when we were over thw cap.

this wasnt a genius move, it was an obvious move and one all other 29 GMs make.

you clearly dont understand the CBA, contracts, and the way the league works

[DarkXaero]

The Humphries contract was kind of a no brainer move, considering the unlimited resources (money) Billy King has.