Brooklyn Nets early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon/Slava/Trader_Joe)

[Chinook]

Losses: Non-NBA Players

Free Agency: NBA Players

That's all that needs to be said, I expect them to be somewhere in the middle of the lottery winning at least 30 games. People are judging the Nets' record as if they need building blocks for the franchise five years from now, the roster they have currently is talented enough to not be in the bottom 5 of the league.

Seriously. And if they believe in LeVert, RHJ, Whitehead and/or McCullouch can develop into legitimate players (don't have to be franchise cornerstones), then it's all the better. For all the talk about where Caris was projected to be drafted, if he was the guy you want, you go get him. Marks didn't need to mess around with a value chart when he comes to drafting his first player.

[LostInACrowd]

Its not about what they had to work with but more about how pro-active they should have been to pursue salary dumps or get commitments from top undrafted players considering their dearth of avenues to get any kind of meaningful prospects in the near future.

I think even Billy King had a pretty decent offseason last year with barely much to work with and this year they have even less to play for.

Ehh.. I think they were pretty active with the young guys. They have close to the maximum number of guys signed (18 out of 20) and hope Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets. As for salary dumps, who is/was out there getting dumped? Calderon and....?
Everyone one had oodles of cap for the most part and no reason to dump salary. They did keep plenty of cap space open to see what comes up between now and the trade deadline for that reason.

Salary cap dump deals:
Indiana gets 3m for taking Evans
Sixers get 2 2nds for eating Tibor Pleiss
Sixers get the cash to cover a Kaun buyout and inch towards the salary cap floor,
Lakers get 2 2nds with Calderon

Not being in a single one while having as much cap space as they have doesn't at all feel like maximizing assets.

As for "Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets" That is not good enough. Not at all. As I said in my review:

Yogi Ferrell, Egidijus Mockevicius and Beau Beech are all taking spots on the 20 man roster, and the Nets didn't buy out a single future year using this years cap space. It might be extremely unlikely that they make the roster, but the Nets should have been targeting the best possible undrafted rookies and offering 3+1(TO)'s with a full 1m guaranteed this year (if needed) to get them to pick the Nets and sign on for 3 cheap years after that unguaranteed. Just makes no sense.

It might be really on the margin, but the Nets not being aggressive in pursuing the best undrafted players, and not throwing significant money at them for this year to get future years cheap is just a really bad use of roster spots and current versus future cap. As a Sixers fan I know it takes a good dozen guys(or more) to get one Covington, but you can also get a TJ McConnell or even a Kilpatrick or etc if you try. The Nets undrafted rookies feel like an effort to get guys into their dleague system and not onto their NBA team.

I threw out Christian Wood as someone the Nets absolutely should have signed. DX had in their top 60 prospects Robert Carter, Wayne Selden, Gary Payton II, Prince Ibeh, Cat Barber, Dorian Finney-Smith. You can pick others if those aren;t the best available.

Even if Yogi Ferrell is the best available (DX had him 63 on the big board), the Nets signed him for a 1 year deal only. They didn't buy any upside with current cap space. Could you have gotten a 2nd and 3rd year at the min unguaranteed by upping his guarantee from 100k to 300k? 500k? 700k?

The Nets didn't try to lock in any upside on those 5 roster spots (with 2 unfilled). When you are as bad off as the Nets look, you should be maximizing your small gains not ignoring them. Especially when the asset used to do so (current cap space) is one you have an over abundance of.

I think you are off in saying the Nets didn't go after the best undrafted talent. The Net's management doesn't care what DX rates players. I'm guessing they are going by their own rating system. I mean they did pick LeVert and Hamilton was the second guy they went after. Both unexpected. I like that they are seeing things that others aren't, because talent evaluation and how it translates into play is a crapshoot. Whether they are actually good at it, we won't find out for awhile since this was management's first offseason.

I do agree though, that they should have offered more guaranteed money for longer unguaranteed contracts.

[LostInACrowd]

Or why Sullinger at 6m instead of Scola at 5m wasn't signed.

Because Sullinger likely wouldn't have preferred that. He can easily play 30+ minutes for the Raptors who have a really weak big man rotation, make a playoff appearance and get a lot more exposure. That's a much better opportunity to showcase himself for a bigger contract next offseason than play for the 14-win Brooklyn team.

If Scola wasn't signed, it is being the starter on the Nets just competing with Booker (and Anthony Bennett) for minutes, or being on Toronto competing with Patrick Patterson and Carroll at the pf spot. There definitely seems more minutes available on that Nets team. A lot more.

In addition, the Nets could have offered more money. Instead of signing the almost 29 year old Booker and the 36 year old Scola, the Nets could have offered Sullinger 10m per year for instance, but with a 1+TO. That way they would have had some upside which they seemed to somehow miss out almost entirely on for this offseason.

Sullinger was never in the picture for the Nets. The new management doesn't seem to be interested in any players that have any questions marks that involve work ethics or being a head case. Look at Anthony Bennett who people have questioned about his work ethic. The Nets worked with him for around 2 months before they offered him a deal.

[HartfordWhalers]

Ehh.. I think they were pretty active with the young guys. They have close to the maximum number of guys signed (18 out of 20) and hope Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets. As for salary dumps, who is/was out there getting dumped? Calderon and....?
Everyone one had oodles of cap for the most part and no reason to dump salary. They did keep plenty of cap space open to see what comes up between now and the trade deadline for that reason.

Salary cap dump deals:
Indiana gets 3m for taking Evans
Sixers get 2 2nds for eating Tibor Pleiss
Sixers get the cash to cover a Kaun buyout and inch towards the salary cap floor,
Lakers get 2 2nds with Calderon

Not being in a single one while having as much cap space as they have doesn't at all feel like maximizing assets.

As for "Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets" That is not good enough. Not at all. As I said in my review:

Yogi Ferrell, Egidijus Mockevicius and Beau Beech are all taking spots on the 20 man roster, and the Nets didn't buy out a single future year using this years cap space. It might be extremely unlikely that they make the roster, but the Nets should have been targeting the best possible undrafted rookies and offering 3+1(TO)'s with a full 1m guaranteed this year (if needed) to get them to pick the Nets and sign on for 3 cheap years after that unguaranteed. Just makes no sense.

It might be really on the margin, but the Nets not being aggressive in pursuing the best undrafted players, and not throwing significant money at them for this year to get future years cheap is just a really bad use of roster spots and current versus future cap. As a Sixers fan I know it takes a good dozen guys(or more) to get one Covington, but you can also get a TJ McConnell or even a Kilpatrick or etc if you try. The Nets undrafted rookies feel like an effort to get guys into their dleague system and not onto their NBA team.

I threw out Christian Wood as someone the Nets absolutely should have signed. DX had in their top 60 prospects Robert Carter, Wayne Selden, Gary Payton II, Prince Ibeh, Cat Barber, Dorian Finney-Smith. You can pick others if those aren;t the best available.

Even if Yogi Ferrell is the best available (DX had him 63 on the big board), the Nets signed him for a 1 year deal only. They didn't buy any upside with current cap space. Could you have gotten a 2nd and 3rd year at the min unguaranteed by upping his guarantee from 100k to 300k? 500k? 700k?

The Nets didn't try to lock in any upside on those 5 roster spots (with 2 unfilled). When you are as bad off as the Nets look, you should be maximizing your small gains not ignoring them. Especially when the asset used to do so (current cap space) is one you have an over abundance of.

I think you are off in saying the Nets didn't go after the best undrafted talent. The Net's management doesn't care what DX rates players. I'm guessing they are going by their own rating system. I mean they did pick LeVert and Hamilton was the second guy they went after. Both unexpected. I like that they are seeing things that others aren't, because talent evaluation and how it translates into play is a crapshoot. Whether they are actually good at it, we won't find out for awhile since this was management's first offseason.

I do agree though, that they should have offered more guaranteed money for longer unguaranteed contracts.

I get that the choice of who is the best un-drafted free agent is up to debate the same way who the best pick is at 20. But the Nets not only didn't pick the guys that others thought had the most potential, they showed no confidence in their own choices based off the contracts given them. At the end of the day, they didn't get any upside past this season in terms of potential contracts. Even if the Nets did pick a great guy, they will have to negotiate a new deal next year after the player gains a ton of leverage. KJ McDaniels turned a 1 year deal into 3m a year, as did Seth Curry.

I hope the Nets are planning on using the two open roster spots to Waiver claim guys getting cut, or get the soon to be cut players in a trade with small incentive. But so far, the use of the slots feels a lot like Trader_Joe summed it up -- "Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets" which isn't a use of resources I can support.

[NBAMythbuster]

All this talk of ""76ers won't be the worst, etc" is just hype from people who like their future. They have a team of all young guys basically, and that is not going to win games. Their guys don't fit together at all either. While I venture to say they won't be a 10 win team, the 76ers are sure to be last in the East barring some massive collapse and injury hit to another Leastern team. The Nets on the other hand should be better because:
1) They actually have a point guard now, and
2) They will be trying to win games down the stretch and other teams won't.
I don't expect much from the Nets, probably 29 wins or so, but this talk of them being the worst team in the East is just off, even if only because of the existence of the 76ers and the incentives.

Not the place to discuss this, but I'm not convinced. The Nets have one legit starter in Lopez, another one who's not going to kill you (Lin), and everyone else is really young or fairly bad. (Also, Lin's name still seems to be doing some work for him--the stats say he's been a whatever rotation guy the last few years, negative BPM and piddling VORP and win shares). The Sixers have G Henderson and Jerryd Bayless in their mediocre vet department, and Sergio Rodriguez is their new PG. Add to that the fact that many of our younger guys were good last year--Noel, Covington, Holmes--and the team is looking comparable to the Nets without even considering the Simmons/Okafor/Saric/Embiid/Luwawu crop. I'd prefer the Sixers were worse this year but I just see so little talent on the Nets team.

(Also, the Nets had no incentive to lose down the stretch last season when they sat both Lopez and Young and lost like the last 12 straight games. I'm guessing that's because they also had/have no dis-incentive to lose--since draft pick doesn't matter and team is out of playoffs, win-loss has no relevance and other things like health risks take precedence.)

Yeh, but the thing is that they won 21 games last season with the same bad talent, but a far worse PG situation. Frankly I don't think T.Young is a good player who moves the needle. Lin is, because he's playing a position you need to have a functional team. He can run pick and roll, he can hit shots. This will be very important to not going in the tank. Some of the guys they got like Booker are also a little underrated. I'm not predicting them to make the playoffs or anything, but I think logically we can expect an improvement off 21 wins. Bayless is vastly worse than Lin, there's a reason people called Lin's contract a good one and the reverse about Bayless much smaller one. I don't think the 76ers talent wins games, it's young guys who don't know how to play yet and who don't fit together, and who still don't really have a point guard. They're also going to be force feeding minutes to guys like SImmons, and rookies almost invariably cause you to lose games when playing big minutes. Nothing in SL suggested Simmons would be an exception to this rule.

[NBAMythbuster]

Or why Sullinger at 6m instead of Scola at 5m wasn't signed.

Because Sullinger likely wouldn't have preferred that. He can easily play 30+ minutes for the Raptors who have a really weak big man rotation, make a playoff appearance and get a lot more exposure. That's a much better opportunity to showcase himself for a bigger contract next offseason than play for the 14-win Brooklyn team.

If Scola wasn't signed, it is being the starter on the Nets just competing with Booker (and Anthony Bennett) for minutes, or being on Toronto competing with Patrick Patterson and Carroll at the pf spot. There definitely seems more minutes available on that Nets team. A lot more.

In addition, the Nets could have offered more money. Instead of signing the almost 29 year old Booker and the 36 year old Scola, the Nets could have offered Sullinger 10m per year for instance, but with a 1+TO. That way they would have had some upside which they seemed to somehow miss out almost entirely on for this offseason.

I'd prefer the Nets having Booker and Scola to Sullinger. Firstly, Sullinger isn't a 4, he's a 5. The Celtics understood that, and it looks like a lot of other teams did too. Secondly, the Nets are trying to change the culture there. They want good guys with good attitudes who will play the right way. Scola is all about that, as he showed again in Toronto last year (where he actually, technically started for a 56 win team). Booker is about that. Sullinger is not. I don't know if you've ever listened to an interview with Sullinger, but he has one of the worst attitudes you'll find around the NBA. He's been a locker room headache in the past, and he would have demanded/expected a starting spot (despite the fact he's not a starter). He's also an injury risk every year, and has a weight problem. There's a reason teams didn't rush to sign him this offseason.

[Jadoogar]

Or why Sullinger at 6m instead of Scola at 5m wasn't signed.

I don't think this is a fair assessment. Sullinger took 6m with the Raptors. He gets a chance to prove he can play on a playoff team that could be one of the top teams in the conference. He would have likely asked for way to go to the Nets and would have probably been looking for more years because it's hard to up your value playing for the nets.

[nowyouknow]

I am Celtics fan and I am actually a little concerned the Nets will be improved.

Now, obviously not playoff bound improved. But the moves they made seem indicative of an organization looking for a culture and system change.

I see the vision as building the offense around a 1/5 pick and roll game with Lin and Brook. When Brook goes to the pivot, Bogdanovic, Lin, Scola, Vasquez, and Lavert all offer solid spacing/shooting.

And Rondae and Booker are aggressive, physical defenders who can be glue.

Overall, I see the vision as a B but the execution closer to a C- given that they swung and missed in restricted FA. I am on the fence as to whether those misses end up being fortuitous. That would've been a lot of money to sink into Crabbe and Tyler Johnson.

[LostInACrowd]

Salary cap dump deals:
Indiana gets 3m for taking Evans
Sixers get 2 2nds for eating Tibor Pleiss
Sixers get the cash to cover a Kaun buyout and inch towards the salary cap floor,
Lakers get 2 2nds with Calderon

Not being in a single one while having as much cap space as they have doesn't at all feel like maximizing assets.

As for "Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets" That is not good enough. Not at all. As I said in my review:


It might be really on the margin, but the Nets not being aggressive in pursuing the best undrafted players, and not throwing significant money at them for this year to get future years cheap is just a really bad use of roster spots and current versus future cap. As a Sixers fan I know it takes a good dozen guys(or more) to get one Covington, but you can also get a TJ McConnell or even a Kilpatrick or etc if you try. The Nets undrafted rookies feel like an effort to get guys into their dleague system and not onto their NBA team.

I threw out Christian Wood as someone the Nets absolutely should have signed. DX had in their top 60 prospects Robert Carter, Wayne Selden, Gary Payton II, Prince Ibeh, Cat Barber, Dorian Finney-Smith. You can pick others if those aren;t the best available.

Even if Yogi Ferrell is the best available (DX had him 63 on the big board), the Nets signed him for a 1 year deal only. They didn't buy any upside with current cap space. Could you have gotten a 2nd and 3rd year at the min unguaranteed by upping his guarantee from 100k to 300k? 500k? 700k?

The Nets didn't try to lock in any upside on those 5 roster spots (with 2 unfilled). When you are as bad off as the Nets look, you should be maximizing your small gains not ignoring them. Especially when the asset used to do so (current cap space) is one you have an over abundance of.

I think you are off in saying the Nets didn't go after the best undrafted talent. The Net's management doesn't care what DX rates players. I'm guessing they are going by their own rating system. I mean they did pick LeVert and Hamilton was the second guy they went after. Both unexpected. I like that they are seeing things that others aren't, because talent evaluation and how it translates into play is a crapshoot. Whether they are actually good at it, we won't find out for awhile since this was management's first offseason.

I do agree though, that they should have offered more guaranteed money for longer unguaranteed contracts.

I get that the choice of who is the best un-drafted free agent is up to debate the same way who the best pick is at 20. But the Nets not only didn't pick the guys that others thought had the most potential, they showed no confidence in their own choices based off the contracts given them. At the end of the day, they didn't get any upside past this season in terms of potential contracts. Even if the Nets did pick a great guy, they will have to negotiate a new deal next year after the player gains a ton of leverage. KJ McDaniels turned a 1 year deal into 3m a year, as did Seth Curry.

I hope the Nets are planning on using the two open roster spots to Waiver claim guys getting cut, or get the soon to be cut players in a trade with small incentive. But so far, the use of the slots feels a lot like Trader_Joe summed it up -- "Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets" which isn't a use of resources I can support.

If you read my last line. I agreed with you about the contract length.

KJ was an early second round pick. The Nets second round pick Whitehead was signed to a 4 year deal.

I don't think not signing them to longer contracts is a show of no confidence. How many undrafted players become solid NBA player? You listed 2 guys who became contributers but weren't signed to longer contracts. That makes it sound like it's common practice as opposed to a show of no confidence. Honestly, I'm not sure why you are so caught up on this.

EDITED:

Are you a talent scout at DX?

[HartfordWhalers]

I get that the choice of who is the best un-drafted free agent is up to debate the same way who the best pick is at 20. But the Nets not only didn't pick the guys that others thought had the most potential, they showed no confidence in their own choices based off the contracts given them. At the end of the day, they didn't get any upside past this season in terms of potential contracts. Even if the Nets did pick a great guy, they will have to negotiate a new deal next year after the player gains a ton of leverage. KJ McDaniels turned a 1 year deal into 3m a year, as did Seth Curry.

I hope the Nets are planning on using the two open roster spots to Waiver claim guys getting cut, or get the soon to be cut players in a trade with small incentive. But so far, the use of the slots feels a lot like Trader_Joe summed it up -- "Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets" which isn't a use of resources I can support.

If you read my last line. I agreed with you about the contract length.

KJ was an early second round pick. The Nets second round pick Whitehead was signed to a 4 year deal.

I don't think not signing them to longer contracts is a show of no confidence. How many undrafted players become solid NBA player? You listed 2 guys who became contributers but weren't signed to longer contracts. That makes it sound like it's common practice as opposed to a show of no confidence. Honestly, I'm not sure why you are so caught up on this.

EDITED:

Are you a talent scout at DX?

That wasn't the intention, but rather to show that there is a downside to not signing guys to longer deals.

Teams without cap space are forced to only be able to offer up to 2 year deals, but looking at undrafted rookies just this year:

Atlanta -- Matt Costello to 2 years using 50k guaranteed to get it
Boston -- Marcus Georges-Hunt just to 1 year. Given that Boston is already cutting guaranteed contracts of 1st/2nd rounders I think this is understandable, but Bentil is 3 years as a very late 2nd rounder, etc.
Charlotte: Mike Tobey and Treveon Graham to 2 years (using 75k per guaranteed to get it), Andrew Andrews and Rasheed Sulaimon got just 1 year deals with 0 guaranteed. (Aaron Harrison is still on roster from signing as a 2 year last year. And Christian Wood signed a 2 year).
Chicago -- none signed but Zipser was a 3+1 and Cristiano Felicio is still on the roster from signing as a 2 year last year)
Cleveland -- none signed but Kay Fielder was 2+1 (and McRae is still on the roster from signing as a 2 year last year).
Dallas -- Jonathan Gibson, Nicolas Brussino, and Dorian Finney-Smith all 3 years, Kyle Collinsworth a 2 year deal, Jameel Warney and Keith Hornsby as 1 year deals, (Salah Mejri still on roster from signing as a 2 year last year)
....
I will probably keep going through them later, but Denver has Toupane and Sampson for instance left over from 2 year deal etc.

But I think the early peek already goes to show that most are signed to multiyear deals (if we go raw players versus teams it gets worse as last year Philly signed a good half dozen to deals like that and still has a bunch on their roster). Granted, most multiyear deals might only be 2 year deals because teams don't have cap space

When it comes down to it, the Nets signings to me show either: 1) little confidence in the guys they signed, or 2) little foresight as to the advantage of having them locked up cheap long term, or 3) both. For what it is worth, I feel 1 is the better option than 2, with 3 obviously the worst sign.

[basketballwacko2]

I gave them a D. Losing Donald Sloan was a franchise killer!

I hated the pick of Lavert they could have bought a 2nd and got him maybe even at #42. I felt like they over paid in terms of money for the 42nd pick. They should have gotten a younger guy at #20. The team continues to flounder at the bottom no matter who's in charge. Celtics say thank you Lord!

22-60 for the season.

[jayjaysee]

Dallas -- Jonathan Gibson, Nicolas Brussino, and Dorian Finney-Smith all 3 years, Kyle Collinsworth a 2 year deal, Jameel Warney and Keith Hornsby as 1 year deals, (Salah Mejri still on roster from signing as a 2 year last year)

This is one of my favorite things that Cuban does now actually. Willing to throw a chunk of money away, every summer, in order to get the best shot at a decent end of rotation player.

If Cuban didn't offer the bit of guaranteed money, a few of the good ones end up chasing a better team's 15th spot or maybe still in Dallas but only one year deals. 50-75k sounds like nothing in the NBA world, but to NBA hopefuls it means a lot I imagine.

The downside to this strategy is a ton of fellow Mavs' fans hyping one of them as the future of the team... But that's just a side effect.

Agree with you completely on that. Brooklyn has the money to throw away in this fashion as well and should have.

[HartfordWhalers]

Dallas -- Jonathan Gibson, Nicolas Brussino, and Dorian Finney-Smith all 3 years, Kyle Collinsworth a 2 year deal, Jameel Warney and Keith Hornsby as 1 year deals, (Salah Mejri still on roster from signing as a 2 year last year)

This is one of my favorite things that Cuban does now actually. Willing to throw a chunk of money away, every summer, in order to get the best shot at a decent end of rotation player.

If Cuban didn't offer the bit of guaranteed money, a few of the good ones end up chasing a better team's 15th spot or maybe still in Dallas but only one year deals. 50-75k sounds like nothing in the NBA world, but to NBA hopefuls it means a lot I imagine.

The downside to this strategy is a ton of fellow Mavs' fans hyping one of them as the future of the team... But that's just a side effect.

Agree with you completely on that. Brooklyn has the money to throw away in this fashion as well and should have.

Philly used to do it with everyone under Hinkie. TJ McConnell was the team's 21st man last year, and they had to cut a guy as camp opened to sign him. But against all odds he was the one that got onto the roster. Having him for 3 more years at the min because the team was willing to throw away a couple hundred thousand across a handful of long shots last year is the type of thing that pays dividends for years.

(In contrast, Philly's undrafted rookies this year all got only 2 year deals, and yet more money than the other guys got. Colangelo is working on making everyone like him at the cost of long term team upside.)

[HotelVitale]

Yeh, but the thing is that they won 21 games last season with the same bad talent, but a far worse PG situation. Frankly I don't think T.Young is a good player who moves the needle. Lin is, because he's playing a position you need to have a functional team. He can run pick and roll, he can hit shots. This will be very important to not going in the tank. Some of the guys they got like Booker are also a little underrated. I'm not predicting them to make the playoffs or anything, but I think logically we can expect an improvement off 21 wins. Bayless is vastly worse than Lin, there's a reason people called Lin's contract a good one and the reverse about Bayless much smaller one.

Eh, not quite seeing the logic there. I'm sure you can see the logical problem with 'this team won 21 games, so adding a couple okay players and subtracting more than half the roster should be an improvement.' In addition to Young, the Nets also lost Joe Johnson (who played 57 games last year and played like 30mpg+ in most of your wins), Jack, Larkin, Sloan, Ellington, etc. None of the last group are particularly good but they're real NBA players who won't blow games on their own (like two-thirds of the Sixers last year). The new roster looks both junky and super thin, and it's just hard to see how they're going to get and maintain a lead against NBA teams next year. The SL won't be better than anyone's, and the second unit might be historically bad.

Also, while Lin will be an improvement for y'all, I think you're setting yourself up for some disappointment. Lin can't really 'hit shots' (he's below average as a shooter at any distance), and he can't run the pn'r particularly well. I consider him as basically two years' ago version of JJ Barea--he can start your offense and sometimes get on a roll, but overall he's a solid bench player who's not particularly productive or efficient, and isn't good on D. (Also, I'm not hyped on Jerryd Bayless but there's not much to suggest that Lin is 'vastly better' than him; Lin's a better initiator but Bayless is more efficient and had the slight edge in advanced stats, though both had bad, nearly negative advanced stats last year. Don't mean to be rude, but who exactly do you think Jeremy Lin is?) (You also only mentioned Bayless, who's probably the least useful/interesting of the three vets the Sixers added.)

[LostInACrowd]

I get that the choice of who is the best un-drafted free agent is up to debate the same way who the best pick is at 20. But the Nets not only didn't pick the guys that others thought had the most potential, they showed no confidence in their own choices based off the contracts given them. At the end of the day, they didn't get any upside past this season in terms of potential contracts. Even if the Nets did pick a great guy, they will have to negotiate a new deal next year after the player gains a ton of leverage. KJ McDaniels turned a 1 year deal into 3m a year, as did Seth Curry.

I hope the Nets are planning on using the two open roster spots to Waiver claim guys getting cut, or get the soon to be cut players in a trade with small incentive. But so far, the use of the slots feels a lot like Trader_Joe summed it up -- "Ferrell, Beach and Mockevicius go the L.I. Nets" which isn't a use of resources I can support.

If you read my last line. I agreed with you about the contract length.

KJ was an early second round pick. The Nets second round pick Whitehead was signed to a 4 year deal.

I don't think not signing them to longer contracts is a show of no confidence. How many undrafted players become solid NBA player? You listed 2 guys who became contributers but weren't signed to longer contracts. That makes it sound like it's common practice as opposed to a show of no confidence. Honestly, I'm not sure why you are so caught up on this.

EDITED:

Are you a talent scout at DX?

That wasn't the intention, but rather to show that there is a downside to not signing guys to longer deals.

Teams without cap space are forced to only be able to offer up to 2 year deals, but looking at undrafted rookies just this year:

Atlanta -- Matt Costello to 2 years using 50k guaranteed to get it
Boston -- Marcus Georges-Hunt just to 1 year. Given that Boston is already cutting guaranteed contracts of 1st/2nd rounders I think this is understandable, but Bentil is 3 years as a very late 2nd rounder, etc.
Charlotte: Mike Tobey and Treveon Graham to 2 years (using 75k per guaranteed to get it), Andrew Andrews and Rasheed Sulaimon got just 1 year deals with 0 guaranteed. (Aaron Harrison is still on roster from signing as a 2 year last year. And Christian Wood signed a 2 year).
Chicago -- none signed but Zipser was a 3+1 and Cristiano Felicio is still on the roster from signing as a 2 year last year)
Cleveland -- none signed but Kay Fielder was 2+1 (and McRae is still on the roster from signing as a 2 year last year).
Dallas -- Jonathan Gibson, Nicolas Brussino, and Dorian Finney-Smith all 3 years, Kyle Collinsworth a 2 year deal, Jameel Warney and Keith Hornsby as 1 year deals, (Salah Mejri still on roster from signing as a 2 year last year)
....
I will probably keep going through them later, but Denver has Toupane and Sampson for instance left over from 2 year deal etc.

But I think the early peek already goes to show that most are signed to multiyear deals (if we go raw players versus teams it gets worse as last year Philly signed a good half dozen to deals like that and still has a bunch on their roster). Granted, most multiyear deals might only be 2 year deals because teams don't have cap space

When it comes down to it, the Nets signings to me show either: 1) little confidence in the guys they signed, or 2) little foresight as to the advantage of having them locked up cheap long term, or 3) both. For what it is worth, I feel 1 is the better option than 2, with 3 obviously the worst sign.

That's interesting. Contracts of undrafted players is something I know very little of.

The Nets signed 12 new players and 9 of them were for multi years with most having a team option for the last year on reasonable deals. So, I doubt number 2 applies.

I think, I'm having a little trouble with your phrasing of showing "little confidence in the guys they signed". If a multi year deal actually reflected a teams belief that a player was going to have a future in the nba after the contract, all the teams would have a pretty bad record percentage wise in evaluating talent.

I can't read the Net's management's mind. Maybe, they do have "little confidence in the guys they signed" who were undrafted. From what I've seen so far, they seem to value more unproven players who have played at least 1 year in the nba. The unproven players they signed to multi year deals this off season are : Bennett, Harris and Hamilton.

From what I've seen, if they do like a player, they are aggressive in pursuing them. They traded Thad to be able to pick LeVert even though others didn't have him at 20. They traded up to get Whitehead. Maybe they don't have a lot of belief in undrafted players. If there was someone they had confidence in, I'm sure they would have pursued him aggressively.

[Chinook]

Wouldn't be surprised to find out that Marks is diametrically opposed to the Hinkie model to building a team from essentially scratch. We'll see if the Spurs way can truly work without already having multiple HoF-caliber players on the roster. I have some doubts, but I'm really interested in seeing how continuity and an emphasis on culture over value would work out for a team that finished with the fourth-worst record in the league last season.

[patman52]

I gave a B, Not crazy about Levert and I think they should have moved Lopez for assets that will be on the team in three years. I liked that they went all out to sign the RFAs.

[HotelVitale]

Wouldn't be surprised to find out that Marks is diametrically opposed to the Hinkie model to building a team from essentially scratch... I have some doubts, but I'm really interested in seeing how continuity and an emphasis on culture over value would work out for a team that finished with the fourth-worst record in the league last season.

Not sure there's much difference between a 'Hinkie model' and any other rebuild, at least not like you're implying. The Sixers kept a bunch of vets around the 1st year of their rebuild, and the only reason they didn't keep their younger 'leaders' (Hawes, Turner) was that those guys actually stunk and wanted a lot of money. The decent players the Sixers gave away--Jrue, Thad Young, MCW--were all in great trades that any GM would've done. The difference here is that the Nets don't have any moves--no draft picks, no young player wanting their FA money, and no more guys to trade except Lopez--so there's no point in doing a drastic rebuild for a few years. (Also, if the Nets got an offer for Lopez like what the Sixers got for Jrue, he would've been gone in a flash. )

The last year of the Sixers rebuild was the only thing that made it seem odd and unusual. Embiid was out, Okafor and Noel didn't make sense, and they made a stupid gamble on Kendall Marshall's health (and talent) that caused them to lose like 25 straight at the start of the season. If the Sixers had re-signed Ish Smith at the beginning of the year, signed a couple of whatever vets like Donald Sloan or Rodney Stuckey to one-year deals and won 20 games last year instead of 10, the whole thing would've looked basically like a normal rebuild. Still no 'continuity' but that's what 'rebuilding' means, and almost no team rebuilds while keeping around key players (unless they happen to have really good younger players who want to stay there.)

[Chinook]

Wouldn't be surprised to find out that Marks is diametrically opposed to the Hinkie model to building a team from essentially scratch... I have some doubts, but I'm really interested in seeing how continuity and an emphasis on culture over value would work out for a team that finished with the fourth-worst record in the league last season.

Not sure there's much difference between a 'Hinkie model' and any other rebuild, at least not like you're implying. The Sixers kept a bunch of vets around the 1st year of their rebuild, and the only reason they didn't keep their younger 'leaders' (Hawes, Turner) was that those guys actually stunk and wanted a lot of money. The decent players the Sixers gave away--Jrue, Thad Young, MCW--were all in great trades that any GM would've done. The difference here is that the Nets don't have any moves--no draft picks, no young player wanting their FA money, and no more guys to trade except Lopez--so there's no point in doing a drastic rebuild for a few years. (Also, if the Nets got an offer for Lopez like what the Sixers got for Jrue, he would've been gone in a flash. )

I don't think it makes sense to say that Philly's Thad trade was any better than the one the Nets made. In fact, I'd say it was better. The pick conveyed much sooner (immediately rather than almost two years later) and it was for a better pick. The Holiday trade was only obvious if you knew he was going to be injured, which is its own thornbush. A healthy All-Star PG who's incredibly young and signed long-term is very arguably worth more than Noel and an unknown pick, hence why NO made the deal.

I'll try to drop any Hinkie stuff here. It's not really what this thread is about, and I don't want to start taking this on the wrong track. I wasn't bringing him up to say he was wrong -- there's no point in doing that anymore. I did so to wonder as to how he and Marks would differ. Other posters have actually done the same thing in this thread, wondering why Marks didn't overpay UDFAs to get them on long-term deals and see who shakes out in camp. I'm more responding to that aspect of Hinkie rather than the more thorny things.

Anyway, I don't think Marks is trying to crapshoot talent at all, and I think that's a difference between him and Hinkie which explains the way the Nets approached UDFAs and FAs in general. I think Hinkie saw players in terms of expected return, essentially their upside scaled against the likelihood of them realizing that upside. In that case, the more folks you bring in to compete, the better odd you have of getting the best return. I think Marks is a more old-fashioned guy in the sense that he wants to find certain players to fill roles and targets guys for that purpose.

That's why him trading Young was interesting. If it was just to get a pick, then that isn't all too different from Hinkie. If it was because they specifically wanted LeVert -- that he was their guy -- then that is way different. It's closer to the Noel trade than the Philly Thad trade. Ultimately, I think Marks didn't try to sign a bunch of UDFAs to four-year deals is that he didn't see a point in doing so. He and his team targeted certain guys and either got them or didn't. They're trying to build a team, not necessarily to just find talent. Especially because the Nets have no incentive to be bad, I don't think Marks will want to go down that road.

[HotelVitale]

I don't think Marks is trying to crapshoot talent at all, and I think that's a difference between him and Hinkie which explains the way the Nets approached UDFAs and FAs in general. I think Hinkie saw players in terms of expected return, essentially their upside scaled against the likelihood of them realizing that upside. In that case, the more folks you bring in to compete, the better odd you have of getting the best return. I think Marks is a more old-fashioned guy in the sense that he wants to find certain players to fill roles and targets guys for that purpose...They're trying to build a team, not necessarily to just find talent.

I get that there's a difference between the models but it's not because one is 'old-fashioned' and values character or whatever--it's because Marks has no draft picks or usual ways to get high-end young talent, so things look a little different. The principle is the same: all rebuilding is a few variations on the same moves of dumping older vets or guys who are going to leave for what you can, and trying to get young talent in any way you can, then waiting to see what you have. If Marks had draft picks, he would've drafted young guys and tried to build around them; he didn't/doesn't, so he got rid of his older players and anyone with trade value (except Lopez), and then tried to sign anyone who was young and promising and wanted to come play for them. He traded Young for a swing-for-fences injury gamble, traded up to get Whitehead (another upside guy), then threw a huge amount of $ at some young okay-not-great guys--all to have some semblance of a young core to build with. And those also built on last year's moves of trading for (high upside) RHJ and (injury-risk) McCullough. None of those moves were about 'fit' or 'roles' or anything else--they were all BPA moves with an eye to upside.

There's no way you believe that Marks was like 'hmm, I know we have no use for Young but the only player I will possibly trade him for is Caris Levert, the cosmically perfect fit our our team!' (Also, didn't that trade happen before the draft actually started? So there's no way they could've known for sure Levert would be there). They cashed Young in for the highest bid, and they picked the player they liked best. No special old-school tactics, just the same thing anyone would do in that situation.

You're also creating a caricature of the Hinkie special--that's a very minor, peripheral part of the Sixers rebuild, and it's also worked out pretty well overall. I don't think anyone hates on having R Covington, Richaun Holmes, and J Grant on 4 year minimum deals. Like I said, the only reason this looks weird is that because Hinkie made the mistake last year of letting their cheap vets walk (Ish Smith, Mbah a Moute, J Rich) and having them end up a terrible 10-win team instead of a terrible 20-win team. No one ever takes a hard look at who's at the end of the bench for rebuilding teams, shouldn't matter that for the Sixers it's a bunch of 2nd rounders making the league minimum.