The Nets are bad. They may get the #1 pick for the Celtics

[playoffs]

I've been saying for a while that Ainge made the trade of the century. I thought the Nets had a chance to be decent the year they traded for Garnett and Pierce (which didn't even happen), but it was clear regardless that they were going to be a terrible team after a year or two and they just gave Boston several years of very high lottery picks while hampering their ability to get better, thereby significantly increasing the chances of these picks being top-3 picks.

[MitchellUK]

It astonishes me that Billy King is still employed. Maybe I am remembering the reactions differently, but was there anyone who really thought Brooklyn had gotten the better of that deal when it happened? Even the most ardent Nets fans must have had concerns.

I mean, the only player of any real consequence that the Nets gave up was Kris Humphries, who is still the definition of career role player, and they managed to dump Gerald Wallace on Boston, which was a silver lining, but the deal was about 36yo Garnett, 35yo Pierce (and to a lesser extent 35yo Terry) for 4 future draft picks. Even the most casual of fans would have realised that mortgaging the future for the slimmest of contending windows (and window that ultimately never even opened) was a bad idea. Not putting any protection on picks that won't be made until long after Garnett and Pierce are broken down and/or retired was lunacy.

[nbafan38]

Of course this looks like the dumbest trade ever now but it's in hindsight,. I actually remember many people saying it was a good trade for the Nets at the time because they were locked into 3 bad contracts already and this was the only way they could at least have a chance to compete for a title. Of course in hindsight the trade looks moronic. It was always a good trade for the celtics though, they weren't gonna win another title with that core so breaking it up while they could still get value made sense.

[PierceFan4ever]

True, they're bad, but their schedule has been pretty tough. I wouldn't want to be too optimistic as a Celtics fan just yet.

[moocow007]

Is the Nets pick unprotected?

yes unprotected 16, pick swap 17' (unprotected), unprotected 18'.

Ouch...that's brutal. Even Isiah Thomas didn't give away that much.

[Capn'O]

It astonishes me that Billy King is still employed. Maybe I am remembering the reactions differently, but was there anyone who really thought Brooklyn had gotten the better of that deal when it happened? Even the most ardent Nets fans must have had concerns.

I mean, the only player of any real consequence that the Nets gave up was Kris Humphries, who is still the definition of career role player, and they managed to dump Gerald Wallace on Boston, which was a silver lining, but the deal was about 36yo Garnett, 35yo Pierce (and to a lesser extent 35yo Terry) for 4 future draft picks. Even the most casual of fans would have realised that mortgaging the future for the slimmest of contending windows (and window that ultimately never even opened) was a bad idea. Not putting any protection on picks that won't be made until long after Garnett and Pierce are broken down and/or retired was lunacy.

A lot of people did, actually. ESPN had them as title contenders and such and there was a lot of speculation that the Knicks made the Bargs trade (lol) to compete in the headlines as they were getting universally clowned for not having completed such a trade. A ton on these boards also felt that the Nets did quite well. Some Knick fans were even threatening to jump ship. It was really remarkable as it was exactly what the Knicks did under Thomas and you could already see how that worked out. As you say - it was a terrible trade at the time and looks worse and worse with each passing year.

[City of Trees]

You would hope so

Sent from my Z970 using Tapatalk

[20MexicanosIn1Van]

The vast majority thought that the Nets were going to be contenders after the trade - not only ESPN. It just so happened that Pierce, KG, and Williams all fell off at the same time.

The season prior to the trade KG averaged 15/8 on 68 games with good defense, Pierce had 18/6/5, Williams 19/8, not to mention they had Joe Johnson and Brook Lopez. The Nets not doing well was just as surprising as the Lakers with Dwight/Kobe/Nash not doing well.

[skones]

I still think they'll win more games than 3 or 4 teams, naming Philly, Denver, Los Angeles, Portland, and Indiana as candidates.

[Jonatton Yeah]

Billy King is a national treasure. He's the George Washington on the Mt. Rushmore of worst GMs in the history of organized sports.

[Han Solo]

Celtics are going to be LOADED in 5 years.

[Han Solo]

The vast majority thought that the Nets were going to be contenders after the trade - not only ESPN. It just so happened that Pierce, KG, and Williams all fell off at the same time.

The season prior to the trade KG averaged 15/8 on 68 games with good defense, Pierce had 18/6/5, Williams 19/8, not to mention they had Joe Johnson and Brook Lopez. The Nets not doing well was just as surprising as the Lakers with Dwight/Kobe/Nash not doing well.

I disagree. I actually remember telling Nets fans on this board that this was a horrific trade. Many others did too. They were all old and Nets just traded their future like it was nothing. This will go down as the worst trade in the history of the NBA when it's all said and done with.

[BigLurch92]

The Celtics are going to have to consolidate all these picks some how.

[Han Solo]

Only hope for the Nets is to sign some good free agents.. Giving possibly top picks year after year is shocking.

[Capn'O]

Only hope for the Nets is to sign some good free agents.. Giving possibly top picks year after year is shocking.

No. I wouldn't try to build at all if I were them. The picks are sunk costs.

I would continue to break it down, grab as many picks as possible regardless of where they fall, and funnel $$$ into international and pro scouting like never before. Get near the salary floor and use trade exceptions to try and poach young players that won't get their due on the teams they're on. Maybe they get lucky and can grab some value agents in the process.

They've done a decent job scouting players so far but that hasn't been the focus of their effort. They've obviously got the money to burn. Use it on management for now and it will pay off with the team later.

[Capn'O]

The Celtics are going to have to consolidate all these picks some how.

"Excuse me - did I hear you have picks?"

[MitchellUK]

Only hope for the Nets is to sign some good free agents.. Giving possibly top picks year after year is shocking.

The new TV deal and next summer's free agent period could be their saving grace. Joe Johnson expires after this season, and with the expected massive jump in the cap the might have a chance to get out of this mess. That said, because the cap is going to jump for everyone, there are going to be loads of teams with money to burn who are likely more attractive than BKN.

[Leslie Forman]

The vast majority thought that the Nets were going to be contenders after the trade - not only ESPN. It just so happened that Pierce, KG, and Williams all fell off at the same time.

The season prior to the trade KG averaged 15/8 on 68 games with good defense, Pierce had 18/6/5, Williams 19/8, not to mention they had Joe Johnson and Brook Lopez. The Nets not doing well was just as surprising as the Lakers with Dwight/Kobe/Nash not doing well.

Sure, they projected to be really good, but the problem is that it projected for one year, two tops.

The three unprotected picks/swaps from 2016-18 were during seasons when Garnett and Pierce were not only going to be near retirement age, they weren't even under contract, Joe Johnson was going to be 34+, Deron Williams 31+, Kirilenko 34+ - it had disaster written all over it.

[HeartBreakKid]

Saying the vast majority of people thought the Nets would be contenders is a little off.

The Nets trade was heavily criticized, there is no hindsight about judging how awful that trade was.

The Nets already screwed themselves into a massive cap space problem. They then traded away their future in hopes that they can nab one championship to at least show for their destined mediocrity.


The Nets at best were seen as an outside shot to upset the Heat, but saying they were anything more than light dark horses is a lie. Maybe a few dumbies thought that, but there were certainly a large number of people who were skeptical of how good the Nets would be - even if their players were able to play a full season, which many people knew was not likely.

To make matters worse, they formed a team that could have only been competitive for one year, and they ended up signing someone who had never coached before in his life in Jason Kidd.

What the Nets did really made no sense, it was just a desperate attempt at getting a ring. It's one of the worst trades ever tbh. Sadly, it might not even be the worst trade Billy King ever did.

I do think if that team was healthy they would have had a shot at beating Miami due to their size advantage, but they probably would have lost in the finals anyway.

Also, Paul Pierce was a rental if I can recall...

[HotelVitale]

The vast majority thought that the Nets were going to be contenders after the trade - not only ESPN. It just so happened that Pierce, KG, and Williams all fell off at the same time. The season prior to the trade KG averaged 15/8 on 68 games with good defense, Pierce had 18/6/5, Williams 19/8, not to mention they had Joe Johnson and Brook Lopez. The Nets not doing well was just as surprising as the Lakers with Dwight/Kobe/Nash not doing well.

Sure, they projected to be really good, but the problem is that it projected for one year, two tops.

Not at all. Sure, Combining an expected top-10 player with another young quasi-star (Lopez) and some super smart vet role players (KG/Pierce/JJ/G Wallace), there was every reason to think that was a good team for 5 years solid. KG's falling off was totally expected and no one was counting on Pierce to be a star anymore, but Deron took one of the biggest and most mysterious leaps backward of any star in the last 20 years. Went from top-10 player to below average starter, you can't make trades that predict that sort of thing.

Still a rash trade, sure, and most people knew it would hurt down the line. But there was little reasonable expectation that the team wouldn't be top-4 in the east for at least 2-4 years. A run like that might make the loss of picks more palatable.