Is Billy King the worst GM in league history?

[KL78192020]

It would be awesome if Melo signed with the Nuggets as a free agent somehow...lol. They would have a top pick from the Knicks/Gallo/Chandler/Mozgov and Melo back. Knicks are still worse than nets.

To bad the have no cap room.

[symbiotic]

THE ANSWER IS TED STEPIEN, BY FAR

Look at the 1979-1987 NBA DRAFTS on Wikipedia!

EVERY SINGLE TIME, the Cleveland Cavaliers gave up a top 10 draft pick to another team, there is always a pick in the top 10 that says (from Cleveland)

(not counting the compensation picks or the one time Gordon Gund + GM got Brad Daugherty in 1986 in a lucky trade). But all of those other picks that were gone in all of those years were as a result of Ted Stepien.

Isiah Thomas & Billy King on steroids. You had a bad team with no hope of the draft for EIGHT years if it wasn't for the NBA having mercy on them and Gordon Gund when he bought the team.

[mup]

The Nets were 15-29 when he made the trade for Wallace with 22 games left in the season, good for the sixth worst record in the league. There was no way they could have gotten a non-lotto pick, which is the only scenario that would make sense for using such a weak protection on the pick.

For KG/Pierce, those two guys are paid large money and they're close to retirement. Why should King make an unnecessary bet on the Nets future where Pierce and KG won't even be in the picture? At the most, they should only give up their '16 pick, and I am sure Boston would jump all over that give that the pick isn't protected, but to give Boston the swap right in '17 AND ANOTHER UNPROTECTED PICK IN '18? Sorry, you don't need hindsight to see that it is complete lunacy.

Ok on the Wallace trade, I forgot the timing on that.

But I don't recall anybody saying the trade for kg and pierce was ludicrous at the time it was made. And if you can find me one thread from this website where somebody said that, I bet I can find you 10 where people said the opposite. I even remember a thread titled something like "are the nets now the favorites in the east?" where a serious debate ensued whether the nets would be #1 seed or of they might slip all the way to #3 (with not a single person even daring to suggest they wouldn't make the playoffs).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I simply didn't know all the details. The Joe Johnson trade was claimed by the media to be one 1st(from Houston) and a bunch of expirings. The swaps weren't mentioned, at least from the reports I've read. Admittedly, I don't follow either team, so I didn't look too hard.

For the KG/Pierce trade, I simply assumed there would be lottery protection. It would be one thing if this was 10 years ago. But the Lakers were almost burnt when they traded an unprotected pick for Steve Nash just a year ago, showing that all aging teams may turn south quickly. I honestly did not expect Billy King to not protect any of his picks because I didn't know KG/Pierce was worth that much on the market.

Nobody cared about the swaps because everyone "knew" the Nets would have the better record than both the Hawks and Celtics. So, everybody considered the swaps a nullity.

Nobody cared about the protection because not a single person thought the nets would miss the playoffs.

It would have been foolish for king to blow up the trade over the swaps or protection when 99.9% of the world considered the nets to be a guaranteed Final 4 team after the trade. Given that the narrative was that the trade put the Nets in the ECF at least, King would have been castrated if it was later found out he balked at the trade over swapping picks in off years or protection.

I believe you when you say you didn't know about those terms, but I don't think I can believe you when you say that if you knew of those terms, it would have changed your mind about the deal at the time it was made.

[baubo]

Ok on the Wallace trade, I forgot the timing on that.

But I don't recall anybody saying the trade for kg and pierce was ludicrous at the time it was made. And if you can find me one thread from this website where somebody said that, I bet I can find you 10 where people said the opposite. I even remember a thread titled something like "are the nets now the favorites in the east?" where a serious debate ensued whether the nets would be #1 seed or of they might slip all the way to #3 (with not a single person even daring to suggest they wouldn't make the playoffs).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I simply didn't know all the details. The Joe Johnson trade was claimed by the media to be one 1st(from Houston) and a bunch of expirings. The swaps weren't mentioned, at least from the reports I've read. Admittedly, I don't follow either team, so I didn't look too hard.

For the KG/Pierce trade, I simply assumed there would be lottery protection. It would be one thing if this was 10 years ago. But the Lakers were almost burnt when they traded an unprotected pick for Steve Nash just a year ago, showing that all aging teams may turn south quickly. I honestly did not expect Billy King to not protect any of his picks because I didn't know KG/Pierce was worth that much on the market.

Nobody cared about the swaps because everyone "knew" the Nets would have the better record than both the Hawks and Celtics. So, everybody considered the swaps a nullity.

Nobody cared about the protection because not a single person thought the nets would miss the playoffs.

It would have been foolish for king to blow up the trade over the swaps or protection when 99.9% of the world considered the nets to be a guaranteed Final 4 team after the trade. Given that the narrative was that the trade put the Nets in the ECF at least, King would have been castrated if it was later found out he balked at the trade over swapping picks in off years or protection.

I believe you when you say you didn't know about those terms, but I don't think I can believe you when you say that if you knew of those terms, it would have changed your mind about the deal at the time it was made.

Danny Ainge and Danny Ferry both knew of the possibilities. Which is why they asked for them. So both obviously believed there's a chance that the Nets suck badly. Also, Miami put protections on the picks they gave away for Lebron and Bosh. And I think it's safe to say that everyone believed Miami would never be in the lottery during their big 3 era. Yet they still put in the protections.

Pat Riley
Danny Ferry
Danny Ainge
.
.
.
Billy King

Three of them are actual GMs. One of them understand basketball as much as espn writers.

[mup]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I simply didn't know all the details. The Joe Johnson trade was claimed by the media to be one 1st(from Houston) and a bunch of expirings. The swaps weren't mentioned, at least from the reports I've read. Admittedly, I don't follow either team, so I didn't look too hard.

For the KG/Pierce trade, I simply assumed there would be lottery protection. It would be one thing if this was 10 years ago. But the Lakers were almost burnt when they traded an unprotected pick for Steve Nash just a year ago, showing that all aging teams may turn south quickly. I honestly did not expect Billy King to not protect any of his picks because I didn't know KG/Pierce was worth that much on the market.

Nobody cared about the swaps because everyone "knew" the Nets would have the better record than both the Hawks and Celtics. So, everybody considered the swaps a nullity.

Nobody cared about the protection because not a single person thought the nets would miss the playoffs.

It would have been foolish for king to blow up the trade over the swaps or protection when 99.9% of the world considered the nets to be a guaranteed Final 4 team after the trade. Given that the narrative was that the trade put the Nets in the ECF at least, King would have been castrated if it was later found out he balked at the trade over swapping picks in off years or protection.

I believe you when you say you didn't know about those terms, but I don't think I can believe you when you say that if you knew of those terms, it would have changed your mind about the deal at the time it was made.

Danny Ainge and Danny Ferry both knew of the possibilities. Which is why they asked for them. So both obviously believed there's a chance that the Nets suck badly. Also, Miami put protections on the picks they gave away for Lebron and Bosh. And I think it's safe to say that everyone believed Miami would never be in the lottery during their big 3 era. Yet they still put in the protections.

Pat Riley
Danny Ferry
Danny Ainge
.
.
.
Billy King

Three of them are actual GMs. One of them understand basketball as much as espn writers.

Fair point there, I suppose. It's all about negotiating and calling bluffs. King might have been too vain to consider the possibility the trade could fail? Or perhaps he was too concerned about the backlash if the trade didn't get done? Cavs and Raptors were already screwed and in salvage mode and might not have fought too hard to get the Heat's protection removed (or else they thought, correctly, that it didn't matter anyway).

Interestingly, Ferry negotiated both the Cavs/Miami swap and the Hawks/Nets swap, no? Make of that what you will, I guess.

[microfib4thewin]

Nobody cared about the swaps because everyone "knew" the Nets would have the better record than both the Hawks and Celtics. So, everybody considered the swaps a nullity.

Nobody cared about the protection because not a single person thought the nets would miss the playoffs.

It would have been foolish for king to blow up the trade over the swaps or protection when 99.9% of the world considered the nets to be a guaranteed Final 4 team after the trade. Given that the narrative was that the trade put the Nets in the ECF at least, King would have been castrated if it was later found out he balked at the trade over swapping picks in off years or protection.

I believe you when you say you didn't know about those terms, but I don't think I can believe you when you say that if you knew of those terms, it would have changed your mind about the deal at the time it was made.

Joe deal: Nobody cared about the swap because it wasn't initially reported. It wasn't until someone found out by looking at RealGM's transaction history months later that people knew the Nets gave away two pick swaps to the Hawks. The thing is, for arguably the worst contract on the market, Joe Johnson should not be able to net a pick no matter how low that pick is going to be, and giving the right to swap not once, but twice, is completely unnecessary. Even if the Nets are a contender this year giving out two swap rights when they didn't have to is outright stupid. What's the point of making a bet like that when there is nothing to win?

Pierce/KG deal: They gave away two unprotected picks that are due 3 and 5 years from now... for two players that no team asked about and will most likely retire next season. I guess you can say KG was asked for since the Clippers were intending to trade for him and Doc, but with the league intervening there is no market for KG. Just like the Joe deal it's a massive overpay regardless of whether the Nets are a contender this year.

[JasonStern]

Nobody cared about the swaps because everyone "knew" the Nets would have the better record than both the Hawks and Celtics. So, everybody considered the swaps a nullity.

Nobody cared about the protection because not a single person thought the nets would miss the playoffs.

It would have been foolish for king to blow up the trade over the swaps or protection when 99.9% of the world considered the nets to be a guaranteed Final 4 team after the trade. Given that the narrative was that the trade put the Nets in the ECF at least, King would have been castrated if it was later found out he balked at the trade over swapping picks in off years or protection.

I believe you when you say you didn't know about those terms, but I don't think I can believe you when you say that if you knew of those terms, it would have changed your mind about the deal at the time it was made.

pft. it's like you don't understand hindsight. EVERYONE on the general board knew the lakers trading for Dwight and Nash wouldn't work, that the Blazers were the stupidest team in the league for drafting an injury prone Greg Oden over the obvious better player in Kevin Durant, etc.

but in all seriousness, people did critique the Nets trade because it gave the Nets a two year window to contend, but traded assets five years down the line for this two year window. and even that two year window wasn't a lock, as any injury to starter severely limited their chances, and injuries were a huge concern given both Lopez's injury history and the age of Garnett and Pierce. but nobody thought the Nets would be this bad. a .500 team in a weak eastern conference? maybe, but not the dumpster fire that they currently find themselves in. after all, Kevin Garnett is a tough, respected guy. he wouldn't allow this, right?

[chrisab123]

If KG and Pierce both leave next season and do not get out of the first round is this the worst trade in recent memory? 3 1st rounders and the option to swap a 4th for 1 year of KG/Pierce and a 1st round exit. I'm rooting for KG and Truth but it's looking pretty bleak right now.

[giberish]

If KG and Pierce both leave next season and do not get out of the first round is this the worst trade in recent memory? 3 1st rounders and the option to swap a 4th for 1 year of KG/Pierce and a 1st round exit. I'm rooting for KG and Truth but it's looking pretty bleak right now.

IMO at lest two of the 1st round picks were just for moving Wallace. So the KG/Pierce deal wasn't that bad, even if it made the Nets long-term options worse. The original Wallace deal (especially when coupled to the follow-up contract) was just that horrible though.

[pb-ceo]

Danny Ainge when BRKLN GM number shows up on caller ID: YESSSSS!!!!