The Official Should We Have Signed Thad Thread

[Hello Brooklyn]

i disagree i think you can sign or trade for a superstar and have that foundation as well. it doesnt matter how you get the susperstars, just how you get them. and now it seems guys like to team up. drafting a star is probably the hardest thing to do in the NBA. you could have the #1 pick 3 years in a row and be unlikely to land a superstar

Can you provide examples of NBA Championship teams doing this? Because I can't.

I just don't think its feasible because superstar player usually don't sign with bad teams or ask for trades to bad teams unless they already have other superstars there.

And if they do, those teams are usually not very successful.

how did the laker get shaq?

how did the pistons get ben and rasheed and rip and billups?

how did the heat get bosh and lebron?

How did the heat get shaq?

how did the celtics get Allen and KG?

How did the lakers get Pau?

You can say all those teams didnt win without drafting a star (kobe/Pierce/Wade) but you can also say that all of those teams traded for or signed a star.

It is rare for a team to be able to win a title by drafting a star. the spurs did it, but where able to do so by being ahead of the curve on the international players and had the tank year for duncan when d-rob got hurt. other then that you are basically going back to MJ's bulls.

You don't understand what I'm saying. I think drafting a superstar player provides the foundation for a team that entices other stars to want to sign or asked to be traded there.

Its a causal effect. But it starts at the top. Do I think teams generally need to trade for or sign other starts to win? Yes but not always, and there are a few examples of teams in the last decade not doing that.

But either way I view it as an absolutely necessary to draft a star player first. Without that, there is no proven success rate.

[Hello Brooklyn]

I'm just saying we had a legitimate chance to do so. And if we kept going on that path then maybe in 2011 or 2012 we could have gotten that superstar player. Its definitely possible.

I guess your definition of "legitimate chance" is different then mine. lets just take a look at some factors.

the team with the worst record has a 25% chance of winning the #1 pick in the lottery.

There is a superstar player in what, every 3 drafts or so? so there is a 33% chance there is the star in the draft

Then you have to factor in that the best player in the draft doesnt always turn out to be the guy drafted #1. lets call it a 1/4 chance that the guy taken #1 doesnt turn out to be the best player. so 75% chance that if you do pick first that the players turns out to be the drafts best player.

when you do the math .25(chance of getting #1) *.33(chance a superstar is in the draft) * .75(odds the guy you take at #1 is the best player in that draft) = .06

So basically, in any given draft where you have the WORST record, you have about a 6% chance of getting a superstar. lets say you put the chances of us signing kevin durant super low. say 1%. that really isnt much less likely, and you dont have to throw away seasons for it.

just look at the cavs, sixers, kings, and wolves as recent examples.

the cavs had lotto pick after lotto pick after #1 pick after #1 pick and really had nothing to show for it until lebron decided to bail them out. Irving, waiters, thompson, bennett, wiggins. not really much to show with 4 #1 overall selections.

Then there is the sixers. they already had to let MCW go as he is due moeny next year and they hadnt had time to evaluate him. they will need to make the same decision on nerlens noel next season as he will be due money and they again likely wouldnt have had time to evaluate him and determine if he is worth huge money. they are still waiting on embidds debut. saric is still overseas.

5 super high lotto picks. 3 of them havent played an NBA game, and the one who was rookie of the year was shipped out. if embiid and okafor are both huge stars, they are still at least 2-3 years away from being a 50+ win type team. if they can even keep them all and get the right veterans to fall in place.

building through the draft is something you do organically, not something you purposely do

Not all superstars are drafted number 1. There are a lot of cases where they are not. So drafting 1 does not have to be the only criteria. No theres not a superstar player every 3 drafts.

I think theres usually one in every draft. Sometimes even multiple ones.

Also your math is really skewed because its based on random numbering. Its not based on a team's ability to look for and find talent, which teams who are successful are usually able to do. The Nets not being one of them.

If we had the right type of people managing the team, it would be much easier to draft better players.

The Cavs and Wolves are examples of bad teams?

The reason Lebron came back is because they had Kyrie and with Wiggins they had the potential to get Love. Without those assets, I don't think Lebron would be willing to come back. And the Wolves are looking great for the future. Wiggins and Townes looks like a potentially great combination.

Sixers too early to tell. Noel and Okafar could end up being really good.

Building through the draft is definitely something you purposely do. Its a step teams often take by blowing up the **** teams they have starting new.

[Hello Brooklyn]

kenyon was a good one, but he wasnt a big part of it. getting a league MVP calibur player in jason kidd was the reason. and even then you are talking about just a 50 win team it what at the time was a really weak conference.

Kenyon was good, but we are talking about a 1 time all-star, and a fringe one at that. if we got the reincarnation of kenyon martin, that isnt leading us anywhere. also, kenyon didnt lure kidd, we didnt even sign kidd, we traded marbury for him.

jason kidd was an absolute stud. he could have went to basically any eastern team during that time and led them to contention

Of course he was a big part of it. He was the second best player on the team. He provided the foundation for the team when Kidd came here to pair him with all-star.

I love Kidd but no he wasn't turning any team into a EC contender.

kenyon didnt build anything. he was a rookie on a 26 win nets team before kidd showed up. Kidd came in, played like an MVP, was 1st team all nba and turned that team into a 50 win team. martin was a 14/5 player that year. not some difference maker. Kidd was the difference maker and van horn was easily the 2nd best player on that team year 1 of kidd.

You are really overvaluing what a 1 timer frnge all-star did. he was a fan favorite and we all loved him but he really was just an excellent role player. not some force.

Kidd was the beast on that team. take kidd off and those go back to 20-30 win teams. put kidd on any tema other then maybe the bulls and cavs and they win 50 games.... and there are several teams kidd could have went to that would have won a ton more then the nets did.

Kenyon's career was derailed by injuries also. Look you can say he was a "one time all star" but he was a huge part of this team. He came up big in several moments.

If he was so mediocre then why didn't we do anything without him? After Kenyon left we were no longer a championship contender. We couldn't even get out of the Eastern Conference anymore.

I understand Kidd was THE player. But without Martin, are the Nets making the NBA Finals. No theyre not.

[Hello Brooklyn]

kenyon was a good one, but he wasnt a big part of it. getting a league MVP calibur player in jason kidd was the reason. and even then you are talking about just a 50 win team it what at the time was a really weak conference.

Kenyon was good, but we are talking about a 1 time all-star, and a fringe one at that. if we got the reincarnation of kenyon martin, that isnt leading us anywhere. also, kenyon didnt lure kidd, we didnt even sign kidd, we traded marbury for him.

jason kidd was an absolute stud. he could have went to basically any eastern team during that time and led them to contention

Of course he was a big part of it. He was the second best player on the team. He provided the foundation for the team when Kidd came here to pair him with all-star.

I love Kidd but no he wasn't turning any team into a EC contender.

What????????????

Now I don't wanna turn this into an ageist argument but you're 22, correct? You were 7 or 8 when K-Mart was drafted. You may not have fully comprehended or remembered what was going on at that time.

The year that K-Mart, who was a borderline all star to be very honest, started playing with us the Nets went 26-56. That was prior to Jason kidd being dealt to us.

The year when Kidd came here, the Nets were projected to be complete garbage. Kidd came in here, immediately made EVERYONE better, we became a running team(one of the most dynamic running teams in the league, the fast breaks were off the chain) and the nets won 52 GAMES. We were a top 6 team in the league overnight, the top defensive team in the league and went to the NBA Finals. The difference was night and day. Jason Kidd was a A Tier Superstar player, if you can, youtube Game 5 vs. The Indiana Pacers in the 2001-02 playoffs and watch his duel vs. Reggie Miller. The Nets' fast break attack got grounded to a HALT and Kidd went into GOD MODE. We haven't had a player that even comes close to that level since...and we TRADED for him. K-Mart was a building block, but he wasn't an all star nor was he the most important cog. Kittles, RJ, KVH, Harris all played just as big of a part but Kidd made that all work, that team wouldn't make the playoffs if you remove him from the equation.

I fully remember what happened that year, even though I may have been young.

I agree that team wasn't making the playoffs without Kidd. But I also think it was the perfect situation for him. The idea that you could put Kidd on "any team" in the EC and make into a contender is a fallacy in my eyes.

I'm not demeaning Jason Kidd as an amazing player. I'm just saying that without a good foundation, I don't think we would be a contending team.

Having players like Van Horn and Kenyon Martin was key.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Again HB...how come those picks didn't land franchise superstars? What happened???

I thought drafting Kenyon Martin worked out. In fact I think it was the reason that we were able to become a contender for the first time in franchise history. With Kenyon we were able to build a good foundation to bring in Kidd and compete for a championship.

If not for poor management I think we had a pretty good window to do it too.

Poor management? That argument is seriously flawed. Had the Blazers drafted Michael Jordan over Sam Bowie back in 1984 would you have said the Bulls had bad management, or some bad luck? All of this draft stuff comes down to chance.

The Nets wanted to draft Kobe and were in striking range...but guess what? Bryant wanted to play for the Lakers, it was basically collusion the way the Lakers landed Bryant, you really think that dude was supposed to fall that far? In fact, the Nets were lucky that they drafted Kerry Kittles instead of the garbage that was on the board at the time.

Again, regarding Kenyon...it was a no brainer pick at No. 1. But Kenyon was not a superstar, he was a top shelf roleplayer. He couldn't create his own shot, he was undersized, and he wasn't a great rebounder. It was Jason Kidd who made the difference between 26 wins and 52 wins, not K-Mart.

I'm not talking about poor management then. I'm talking about the poor management of the team after 2004, when we broke up the Finals team.

[Hello Brooklyn]

I am still pissed Thorn didnt try to trade K-Mart for Rasheed or go after KG.

well, he DID try and trade for rasheed. SEVERAL times. just could never make it work. also pursued KG. again couldnt make it happen.

i think the worst thing to happen in the kidd era was Shareef Abdur Raheem failing his physical after we did a sign and trade for him and his career falling apart. all that team need was a half court wing scorer like SAR. might have been enough to get us past the spurs.

Agree with you on that. SAR with Vince Carter, Jefferson, and Kidd would have been something.

[MrDollarBills]

Of course he was a big part of it. He was the second best player on the team. He provided the foundation for the team when Kidd came here to pair him with all-star.

I love Kidd but no he wasn't turning any team into a EC contender.

What????????????

Now I don't wanna turn this into an ageist argument but you're 22, correct? You were 7 or 8 when K-Mart was drafted. You may not have fully comprehended or remembered what was going on at that time.

The year that K-Mart, who was a borderline all star to be very honest, started playing with us the Nets went 26-56. That was prior to Jason kidd being dealt to us.

The year when Kidd came here, the Nets were projected to be complete garbage. Kidd came in here, immediately made EVERYONE better, we became a running team(one of the most dynamic running teams in the league, the fast breaks were off the chain) and the nets won 52 GAMES. We were a top 6 team in the league overnight, the top defensive team in the league and went to the NBA Finals. The difference was night and day. Jason Kidd was a A Tier Superstar player, if you can, youtube Game 5 vs. The Indiana Pacers in the 2001-02 playoffs and watch his duel vs. Reggie Miller. The Nets' fast break attack got grounded to a HALT and Kidd went into GOD MODE. We haven't had a player that even comes close to that level since...and we TRADED for him. K-Mart was a building block, but he wasn't an all star nor was he the most important cog. Kittles, RJ, KVH, Harris all played just as big of a part but Kidd made that all work, that team wouldn't make the playoffs if you remove him from the equation.

I fully remember what happened that year, even though I may have been young.

I agree that team wasn't making the playoffs without Kidd. But I also think it was the perfect situation for him. The idea that you could put Kidd on "any team" in the EC and make into a contender is a fallacy in my eyes.

I'm not demeaning Jason Kidd as an amazing player. I'm just saying that without a good foundation, I don't think we would be a contending team.

Having players like Van Horn and Kenyon Martin was key.

That team would have been a lottery team without Kidd, the Nets were a negative offensively when he was off the floor.

From 1996 to 2007, the two teams that he played for, The Suns and The Nets made the post season every single year. You are vastly underrating Kidd's greatness while trying to glorify top shelf roleplayers in an attempt to back up your argument. The only all star level stud player Kidd played with legitimately during his time here was Vince.

K-Mart, KVH(before he got ran out of town), RJ, Kittles, Harris, Collins etc played their parts well but Kidd made that ship run. Swap Kidd out with someone like, oh I dunno, stephon marbury and that team wins 20-30 games at best.

[MrDollarBills]

I thought drafting Kenyon Martin worked out. In fact I think it was the reason that we were able to become a contender for the first time in franchise history. With Kenyon we were able to build a good foundation to bring in Kidd and compete for a championship.

If not for poor management I think we had a pretty good window to do it too.

Poor management? That argument is seriously flawed. Had the Blazers drafted Michael Jordan over Sam Bowie back in 1984 would you have said the Bulls had bad management, or some bad luck? All of this draft stuff comes down to chance.

The Nets wanted to draft Kobe and were in striking range...but guess what? Bryant wanted to play for the Lakers, it was basically collusion the way the Lakers landed Bryant, you really think that dude was supposed to fall that far? In fact, the Nets were lucky that they drafted Kerry Kittles instead of the garbage that was on the board at the time.

Again, regarding Kenyon...it was a no brainer pick at No. 1. But Kenyon was not a superstar, he was a top shelf roleplayer. He couldn't create his own shot, he was undersized, and he wasn't a great rebounder. It was Jason Kidd who made the difference between 26 wins and 52 wins, not K-Mart.

I'm not talking about poor management then. I'm talking about the poor management of the team after 2004, when we broke up the Finals team.

Poor management was due to cost cutting tactics, so I won't argue there. I think that the team for what its worth did a pretty good job retooling once K-Mart left. The Vince Carter trade was highway robbery and it kept the team afloat

And to touch back on our Kidd conversation, take a good look at the steaming pile of CRAP that he and Vince had to play with in 2004.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NJN/2005.html

He and Vince lifted up barrels of toxic waste to get the team to the playoffs, its one of the greatest end of season runs in the team's history.

[jbeachboy]

vince was 2nd or 3rd best in league once he joined the nets after raptors

[Prokorov]

Kenyon's career was derailed by injuries also. Look you can say he was a "one time all star" but he was a huge part of this team. He came up big in several moments.

his career being derailed by injurie shas nothing to do with him imssing all-star games prior to the injury. even the one he made was a fringe selection. "he came up big in several moments" he also came up small in huge moments. 3-23 ring a bell?

If he was so mediocre then why didn't we do anything without him? After Kenyon left we were no longer a championship contender. We couldn't even get out of the Eastern Conference anymore.

because of kidds knee, shaw coming back to the east, kerry kittles career going down the toilet, mccullough retiring, etc. it was a mass exodus.

I understand Kidd was THE player. But without Martin, are the Nets making the NBA Finals. No theyre not.

sure we are. and if you replace him with a real star like rasheed wallace, we might have won a title.

kenyon wasnt a scrub, but he was certainly nothing even close to remebling a star player, and jason kidd basically made him.

[MrDollarBills]

Jason Kidd made that guy's career, I'm baffled as to why this is even up for debate. K-Mart was not even a legitimate offensive threat out there, he had a small jumper but when the team's fast break attack got stopped the Nets had a tough time generating offense in the half court and he wasn't a guy that could provide back to the basket offense.

Also, don't forget that we were beaten by the Pistons in 7 games in 2004, and that was with Kenyon here.

the on/off numbers and the insane jump in wins is enough evidence for me. Kidd's impact dwarfed K-Mart's in every facet of the game.

[SIC]

Jason Kidd made that guy's career, I'm baffled as to why this is even up for debate. K-Mart was not even a legitimate offensive threat out there, he had a small jumper but when the team's fast break attack got stopped the Nets had a tough time generating offense in the half court and he wasn't a guy that could provide back to the basket offense.

Also, don't forget that we were beaten by the Pistons in 7 games in 2004, and that was with Kenyon here.

the on/off numbers and the insane jump in wins is enough evidence for me. Kidd's impact dwarfed K-Mart's in every facet of the game.

Totally Agree.

The worse thing is K-Mart called out KVH, but KVH was more of a Half court player than K-Mart was. Yeah KVH looked small at times but he stretched the floor and helped the offense by NO clogging the middle. KVH could have easily came off the bench instead Thorn traded him for Mutombo. I am not saying Nets didnt need another Center, but Thorn could have gone after a cheaper and younger player instead of trading one of the only half court players you had. Collins had a better FG% than Mutombo that year.

K-Mart had the heart, athleticism and defense, but he lacked post up game and his jumper midrange game wasnt pretty.

Kidd made all those guys. Kidd got K-Mart and RJ their huge contracts. Kidd was my favorite player of ALL TIME. Only player in the NBA right now that can do what Kidd did for the Nets is Lebron. There is no player out their that can make a bunch of scrubs look like NBA Contenders the way Kidd did. Kidd made the Knicks a 54 win team. Look what happened when he left.

[jbeachboy]

van horn was most talented offensively , but he really was half court player only and kept declining after cassell and marbury because of it and other reasons