Brooklyn Nets 2017 Draft Thread

[Ror1997]

Nets didn't give Crabbe 75/4 to be a 3&D player. They obviously believe he is an unfinished product and wanted to develop him further. And you cant say we dodged a bullet with him because we were always targeting him to develop him. The blazers didn't try and evolve his game they just needed his 3 pt shooting. Saying we dodged a bullet with Crabbe and basing it off how he performed last year isn't correct.


The plan with Crabbe was to groom him, and the Blazers arent interested in that. By the third year of his contract with the nets, Crabbe could've (emphasis on could) been an all around scorer (nets obviously saw him as a first or second option) about to hit his prime. By the third year of his contract with Portland, Crabbe will still be nothing more than the 6th/7th man, and he'll be nothing more than a 3 pt shooter.

Crabbe with the Blazers and with the Nets is apples to oranges.

[shakendfries]

Doesn't matter- the Nets need talent and picks. If Portland is offering both Marks has to say yes.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Ror1997]

Doesn't matter- the Nets need talent and picks. If Portland is offering both Marks has to say yes.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Emphasis on talent.

If you're arguing that the nets should take back someone from the group of Crabbe/Harkless/Leonard no matter who it is, so long as we get a draft pick, regardless of which of the 3 it is, I would agree.

If you're arguing that we should take back turner for a draft pick I would disagree. Turner has too much negative value to balance out how badly we need draft picks. Even if its the 15th pick we're talking about.

[shakendfries]

Doesn't matter- the Nets need talent and picks. If Portland is offering both Marks has to say yes.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Emphasis on talent.

If you're arguing that the nets should take back someone from the group of Crabbe/Harkless/Leonard no matter who it is, so long as we get a draft pick, regardless of which of the 3 it is, I would agree.

If you're arguing that we should take back turner for a draft pick I would disagree. Turner has too much negative value to balance out how badly we need draft picks. Even if its the 15th pick we're talking about.

Turner is awful. The Nets are trying to build a roster that can defend and shoot from the perimeter. Turner does neither.

If Atkinson could help make Bazemore a halfway decent SF, I'm sure Crabbe would do fine with the Nets. Even better if he comes with a pick.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Prokorov]

no one who knows basketball takes crabbe over turner. crabbe is an enormous liability. you dont really need to work to gaurd him (he wont put it on the floor and he is shy to shoot unless he is super wide open) and on defense he absolutely kills you.

everything you can do with crabbe you can do better with joe harris.

crabbe is REALLY awful. like of all the guys who play 25+ minutes he has got to be among the worst of them.

turner isnt good, but he provides a utility, wont kill you on defense, rebounds, and is great around young players.

That's why the team offered him that contract and Portland matched right?

Joe was signed after Portland matched but you want people to believe he's better? One got $74 million the other a minimum contract but the one who got the minimum is better riiiight.

You left out the most important part he's a shooting guard who can't shoot!

1) I think we know by now that making more money then someone doesnt make you better. There is a reason that after ONE season portland already regrets the crabbe deal and is considering giving up a pick to mvoe him.

2) We dont really have to speculate. we have the stats to show that Joe Harris is better (unless you dont think defense matters, in which case its about even)

3) how is harris a shooting gaurd who cant shoot? he led the team in three point shooting at 39%... and unlike crabbe it wasnt just catch and shoot threes.

if your only argument for crabbe is "he makes more" thats kind of a weak argument.

[Prokorov]

Nets didn't give Crabbe 75/4 to be a 3&D player. They obviously believe he is an unfinished product and wanted to develop him further. And you cant say we dodged a bullet with him because we were always targeting him to develop him. The blazers didn't try and evolve his game they just needed his 3 pt shooting. Saying we dodged a bullet with Crabbe and basing it off how he performed last year isn't correct.


The plan with Crabbe was to groom him, and the Blazers arent interested in that. By the third year of his contract with the nets, Crabbe could've (emphasis on could) been an all around scorer (nets obviously saw him as a first or second option) about to hit his prime. By the third year of his contract with Portland, Crabbe will still be nothing more than the 6th/7th man, and he'll be nothing more than a 3 pt shooter.

Crabbe with the Blazers and with the Nets is apples to oranges.

Crabbe got 30 minutes in portland and they tried to get him more volume be he wasnt able to take advantage. portland fans call him lazy. sure the nets are more about development, but you cant just take a poor second round talent and make him become a good player just because you paid him alot of money.

i think if we had crabbe he would have been exactly what harris was only with worse D. because they are basically the same player only harris husltles more and is better off the ball. maybe crabbe hustles more here. its all speculation. but there is literally nothing to suggest he had or has more potential then harris.

again its not like crabbe was some mid first round pick who showed promise early in the NBA.

Maybe crabbe could develop here... but he would have to develop from his current level of being an awful player who does nothing but hit 1 maybe 2 threes a game despite tons of open looks

[Prokorov]

Doesn't matter- the Nets need talent and picks. If Portland is offering both Marks has to say yes.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Emphasis on talent.

If you're arguing that the nets should take back someone from the group of Crabbe/Harkless/Leonard no matter who it is, so long as we get a draft pick, regardless of which of the 3 it is, I would agree.

If you're arguing that we should take back turner for a draft pick I would disagree. Turner has too much negative value to balance out how badly we need draft picks. Even if its the 15th pick we're talking about.

crabbe has by far the most negative value of all those players. and is the only one portland fans call lazy.

his contract is the worst. other then leonard he is the worst player but leonard only makes 3/30 and i think has more upside as a stretch big

[Prokorov]

Doesn't matter- the Nets need talent and picks. If Portland is offering both Marks has to say yes.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Emphasis on talent.

If you're arguing that the nets should take back someone from the group of Crabbe/Harkless/Leonard no matter who it is, so long as we get a draft pick, regardless of which of the 3 it is, I would agree.

If you're arguing that we should take back turner for a draft pick I would disagree. Turner has too much negative value to balance out how badly we need draft picks. Even if its the 15th pick we're talking about.

Turner is awful. The Nets are trying to build a roster that can defend and shoot from the perimeter. Turner does neither.

If Atkinson could help make Bazemore a halfway decent SF, I'm sure Crabbe would do fine with the Nets. Even better if he comes with a pick.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Kent Bazemore was as good/better with the lakers then the hawks, across the board. Kenny didnt turn bazemore into anything. Demarre Carrole is the guy kenny really worked magic on.

[Ror1997]

Nets didn't give Crabbe 75/4 to be a 3&D player. They obviously believe he is an unfinished product and wanted to develop him further. And you cant say we dodged a bullet with him because we were always targeting him to develop him. The blazers didn't try and evolve his game they just needed his 3 pt shooting. Saying we dodged a bullet with Crabbe and basing it off how he performed last year isn't correct.


The plan with Crabbe was to groom him, and the Blazers arent interested in that. By the third year of his contract with the nets, Crabbe could've (emphasis on could) been an all around scorer (nets obviously saw him as a first or second option) about to hit his prime. By the third year of his contract with Portland, Crabbe will still be nothing more than the 6th/7th man, and he'll be nothing more than a 3 pt shooter.

Crabbe with the Blazers and with the Nets is apples to oranges.

Crabbe got 30 minutes in portland and they tried to get him more volume be he wasnt able to take advantage. portland fans call him lazy. sure the nets are more about development, but you cant just take a poor second round talent and make him become a good player just because you paid him alot of money.

i think if we had crabbe he would have been exactly what harris was only with worse D. because they are basically the same player only harris husltles more and is better off the ball. maybe crabbe hustles more here. its all speculation. but there is literally nothing to suggest he had or has more potential then harris.

again its not like crabbe was some mid first round pick who showed promise early in the NBA.

Maybe crabbe could develop here... but he would have to develop from his current level of being an awful player who does nothing but hit 1 maybe 2 threes a game despite tons of open looks

Crabbe got 30 minutes in Portland, a team fighting for playoff contention every game. They needed him to focus on his 3 point shooting, because its the best way for him to help the team win.

Here, Crabbe would've gotten 30 minutes on a team whos only goal was to make their players better.

Remember those games where getting RHJ shots seemed to be a priority on offense even when RHJ wouldn't be knocking them down? They were working on expanding his offensive game, its one of the luxuries of being in full blown f*** it mode. Crabbe can't do that on a team that's scratching and clawing to make the playoffs. They can give him more minutes and more shots in Portland all they want. But when they do, he needs to step up right away because the pressure is on to win. In Brooklyn, there's no pressure. Crabbe can go out and shoot 4/21, and the next day Atkinson would just say try again. Games like that would've happened 100%.

And there's also an argument to be made that our players are more motivated to become better than most other teams. Maybe some of that would've rubbed off on Crabbe.

Now with Harris, there's a reason he was plan B to Crabbe. There's a reason crabbe got a 4 year deal and Harris got 2. Harris is a good role player and hes a good shooter. Yeah, he can spell Crabbe in the meantime. But like I've been saying this whole time, the nets view Crabbe as somebody who has alot of potential. Somebody who could've grown into the 75 mil contract. Crabbe was always a bigger picture move. Crabbe was a long term investment and, ideally a long term solution. Harris is nothing but a stop gap.

And I'm not criticizing Harris. I think he was a great find and I thought he did a great job last season. But he isn't a long term project like Crabbe was. Simple as that. You aren't wrong when you say Harris can do the exact same thing Crabbe can. But that's just for the time being. Since we'll never see how those 4 years would've turned out, we can't properly call that a bullet dodged. And you can't use his stats last year to support the argument that its a bullet dodged because its 2 entirely different teams. 2 different agendas. 2 different locker rooms. Apples to oranges.

[shakendfries]

Harris may have the same skillet as Crabbe, but having Crabbe on the roster would undoubtedly elevate Harris' level of play. There is no legitimate downside to having Crabbe on the roster barring a deron williams esque décline for thé 24yr old. Crabbe is much better competition for the Nets' perimeter threats than Foye, Goodwin, & McDaniels.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Prokorov]

Now with Harris, there's a reason he was plan B to Crabbe. There's a reason crabbe got a 4 year deal and Harris got 2. Harris is a good role player and hes a good shooter. Yeah, he can spell Crabbe in the meantime. But like I've been saying this whole time, the nets view Crabbe as somebody who has alot of potential. Somebody who could've grown into the 75 mil contract. Crabbe was always a bigger picture move. Crabbe was a long term investment and, ideally a long term solution. Harris is nothing but a stop gap.

And again, we dodged an enormous bullet on Crabbe and protland is already regretting matching that deal. From marks own words you can tell he has changed his thinking with his "you dont want to give up big salaries to be a 30 win team".

As far as crabbe and turner. there is exactly NOTHING to suggest crabbe has more potential or is currently the better player:

Tangibles
-same age (25)
-same height (6'6")
-same weight (crabbe 215 harris 220)
-similar prospects (crabbe went #31 while Harris went #33)

Producton:

Minutes:
Harris - 22 | crabbe - 29

points:
Harris 8.3 | crabbee 10.7

points per36:
Harris 13.5 | crabbe 13.5

rebs:
harris 2.8 | crabbe 2.8

assists:
harris 1.0 | crabbe 1.2

steals:
harris 0.6 | crabbe 0.7

blocks:

harris 0.2 | crabbe 0.3

Shooting:

3 point percentage:
Harris 39% on 4.3 attempts |44% on 3.8 attemps

TS%
Harris - 56.6% | crabbe 60.2%

eFG%
Harris - 55.3% | crabbe 57.9%

Catch and shoot threes:
Harris 92.5% of this threes catch and shoot at 46.9% | crabbe 97% of his threes catch and shoot at 47.4%

Corner threes:
24.4% of this threes from corner at 46.3% | crabbe -26.8% of his threes from corner at 42.0%

at the rim:
Harris - 48.9% | crabbe - 49.0%

PER:
harris - 9.0 | crabbe 11.6

Defense:

DRPM
harris: -1.58 | crabbe: -2.88 (96 of 99 at his position only kilpatrick/crawford/bogs were worse)

DRAPM
harris: -1.19 | crabbe -2.02 (89 of 96 qualifiers at his position)

DBPM
harris: -1.6 | crabbe: -1.5

DWS:
harris 0.8 | crabbe 1.0

PPP allowd:

Harris 1.15 | crabbe 1.16

Im just not sure, regardless of the criteria that someone can tell me that crabbe either A) is the better player or B) has more potential. I even think if you look closer into the numbers it is hard to definitely say that crabbe is the better shooter (he shot better from three but he also took a significantly higher percentage of assited on and catch and shoot threes).

And I'm not criticizing Harris. I think he was a great find and I thought he did a great job last season. But he isn't a long term project like Crabbe was. Simple as that. You aren't wrong when you say Harris can do the exact same thing Crabbe can. But that's just for the time being. Since we'll never see how those 4 years would've turned out, we can't properly call that a bullet dodged. And you can't use his stats last year to support the argument that its a bullet dodged because its 2 entirely different teams. 2 different agendas. 2 different locker rooms. Apples to oranges.

it really isnt apples to oranges. i mean if crabbe was getting like 12 minutes off the bench because portland was in win now mode you would have a point. but he got 7 more minutes a night then harris did.

And im still waiting for any shred of evidence of how crabbe is a long term project and harris isnt when they are the same age, size, skillset, and drafted within 2 spots of eachother.

when you can get the same player for 16 million less you DEFINITELY dodged a bullet.

[Prokorov]

Harris may have the same skillet as Crabbe, but having Crabbe on the roster would undoubtedly elevate Harris' level of play. There is no legitimate downside to having Crabbe on the roster barring a deron williams esque décline for thé 24yr old. Crabbe is much better competition for the Nets' perimeter threats than Foye, Goodwin, & McDaniels.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I disagree. Crabbe is one of the leagues worst defenders. on par with Bogs. and you saw the DRASTIC change in our defense when we moved bogs and KJ/Goodwin saw more minutes.

McDaniels and goodwin can do alot of things including defend and get out in tranisiton. crabbe does 1 thing well.

I like the offs of mcdaniels or goodwin adding a three more then i like the odds of crabbe developing ball handling, passing ability, becomeing a transition player, going from defensive liability to average or better, etc.

Again what exactly is it that people like from crabbe other then his 3 point percentage?

low prospepct, only does 1 thing well, does alot negatively, doesnt defend, coming of foot surgery, 25 years old... i mean man i know threes are important especially here but lets not be hoodwinked just because of 44% on 1.5 makes a game with 97% of that catch and shoot and somehow translate that into him being good at anything else.

Go back to the the prior offseason when we signed Wayne ellington and read what people had to say. all the stuff people are saying about crabbe now. then when they realize 1.5 threes is really not impactful when you do everything else negatively they turned HARD on ellington. and crabbe isnt even as good as ellington shooting off the dribble/screens.

All I ask is that people do more then just look at his salary and 3 point percentage and assume he is good

[Ror1997]

Prok just doesn't wanna like crabbe so lets just all stop wasting time arguing about it

[Prokorov]

Prok just doesn't wanna like crabbe so lets just all stop wasting time arguing about it

Do I "not want to like crabbe" or have I presented several well thought out reasons why I believe he is not a very good player with mountains of evidence to support my claims?

I think what is probably more true is "Ror1997 just wants to love crabbe." Like honestly the only thing you'v said to support crabbe is that he makes a lot of money as if everyone in the league who signed a big deal last season is a good player?

Again... all I ask is that before making such a definitive statement you look at more then just his contract and 3 point percentage.

-Look at the stats/analytics/shooting situations and metrics.
-Read what portland fans have/had to say (both when they matched crabbe, at years end, and now)
-Read their beat wrtiers artciles on crabbe
-watch crabbe (as mentioned, im happy to provide my league pass login for those wanting to watch full games from 16-17 and have to several already)

I'm not claiming to be some scout or super expert... but ive seen crabbe play. and I read the portland forum. and i read the tweets from mark richmond and company. and ive seen all the stats and analytics.

not alot there to support crabbe being anything but a poor player with low effort, who does most things poorly outside of catch and shoot wing and corner threes.

I dont think im being unfair here or presenting some kind of crazy argument. This thread is alot like the 2015 offseason thread when we signed Ellington.

[Ror1997]

Prok just doesn't wanna like crabbe so lets just all stop wasting time arguing about it

Do I "not want to like crabbe" or have I presented several well thought out reasons why I believe he is not a very good player with mountains of evidence to support my claims?

I think what is probably more true is "Ror1997 just wants to love crabbe." Like honestly the only thing you'v said to support crabbe is that he makes a lot of money as if everyone in the league who signed a big deal last season is a good player?

Again... all I ask is that before making such a definitive statement you look at more then just his contract and 3 point percentage.

-Look at the stats/analytics/shooting situations and metrics.
-Read what portland fans have/had to say (both when they matched crabbe, at years end, and now)
-Read their beat wrtiers artciles on crabbe
-watch crabbe (as mentioned, im happy to provide my league pass login for those wanting to watch full games from 16-17 and have to several already)

I'm not claiming to be some scout or super expert... but ive seen crabbe play. and I read the portland forum. and i read the tweets from mark richmond and company. and ive seen all the stats and analytics.

not alot there to support crabbe being anything but a poor player with low effort, who does most things poorly outside of catch and shoot wing and corner threes.

I dont think im being unfair here or presenting some kind of crazy argument. This thread is alot like the 2015 offseason thread when we signed Ellington.

No its just you're simply rejecting any argument in crabbes favor. No point in arguing. And you don't seem to be reading my posts either so I'm not going to bother arguing. So just agree to disagree.

[Prokorov]

Prok just doesn't wanna like crabbe so lets just all stop wasting time arguing about it

Do I "not want to like crabbe" or have I presented several well thought out reasons why I believe he is not a very good player with mountains of evidence to support my claims?

I think what is probably more true is "Ror1997 just wants to love crabbe." Like honestly the only thing you'v said to support crabbe is that he makes a lot of money as if everyone in the league who signed a big deal last season is a good player?

Again... all I ask is that before making such a definitive statement you look at more then just his contract and 3 point percentage.

-Look at the stats/analytics/shooting situations and metrics.
-Read what portland fans have/had to say (both when they matched crabbe, at years end, and now)
-Read their beat wrtiers artciles on crabbe
-watch crabbe (as mentioned, im happy to provide my league pass login for those wanting to watch full games from 16-17 and have to several already)

I'm not claiming to be some scout or super expert... but ive seen crabbe play. and I read the portland forum. and i read the tweets from mark richmond and company. and ive seen all the stats and analytics.

not alot there to support crabbe being anything but a poor player with low effort, who does most things poorly outside of catch and shoot wing and corner threes.

I dont think im being unfair here or presenting some kind of crazy argument. This thread is alot like the 2015 offseason thread when we signed Ellington.

No its just you're simply rejecting any argument in crabbes favor. No point in arguing. And you don't seem to be reading my posts either so I'm not going to bother arguing. So just agree to disagree.

What argument am I ignoring in favor of Crabbe? That is what I was getting at in my previous post. There is no argument being made for Crabbe. Meanwhile i've made several compelling ones with evidence to support it.

The only arguments ive seen in favor of Crabbe are that he got paid alot so he must be good/have potential. and with nothing to back that up (like for instance the peformance of player 23-26 who signed similar deals the past 3-5 years or something along those lines)

as far a me "not reading your posts" what exactly is there to read? your last 2 posts didnt even form a complete paragraph, didnt pose a questions, and didnt present any arguments. your last post is basically a "im going to ignore all the arguments and evidence you posted, no address any of it, and end it here because i disagree."

if you had something to respond to, id respond to it. but you didnt real post anything other then he makes alot of money and he would be better here without anything to support it

[Ror1997]

Do I "not want to like crabbe" or have I presented several well thought out reasons why I believe he is not a very good player with mountains of evidence to support my claims?

I think what is probably more true is "Ror1997 just wants to love crabbe." Like honestly the only thing you'v said to support crabbe is that he makes a lot of money as if everyone in the league who signed a big deal last season is a good player?

Again... all I ask is that before making such a definitive statement you look at more then just his contract and 3 point percentage.

-Look at the stats/analytics/shooting situations and metrics.
-Read what portland fans have/had to say (both when they matched crabbe, at years end, and now)
-Read their beat wrtiers artciles on crabbe
-watch crabbe (as mentioned, im happy to provide my league pass login for those wanting to watch full games from 16-17 and have to several already)

I'm not claiming to be some scout or super expert... but ive seen crabbe play. and I read the portland forum. and i read the tweets from mark richmond and company. and ive seen all the stats and analytics.

not alot there to support crabbe being anything but a poor player with low effort, who does most things poorly outside of catch and shoot wing and corner threes.

I dont think im being unfair here or presenting some kind of crazy argument. This thread is alot like the 2015 offseason thread when we signed Ellington.

No its just you're simply rejecting any argument in crabbes favor. No point in arguing. And you don't seem to be reading my posts either so I'm not going to bother arguing. So just agree to disagree.

What argument am I ignoring in favor of Crabbe? That is what I was getting at in my previous post. There is no argument being made for Crabbe. Meanwhile i've made several compelling ones with evidence to support it.

The only arguments ive seen in favor of Crabbe are that he got paid alot so he must be good/have potential. and with nothing to back that up (like for instance the peformance of player 23-26 who signed similar deals the past 3-5 years or something along those lines)

as far a me "not reading your posts" what exactly is there to read? your last 2 posts didnt even form a complete paragraph, didnt pose a questions, and didnt present any arguments. your last post is basically a "im going to ignore all the arguments and evidence you posted, no address any of it, and end it here because i disagree."

if you had something to respond to, id respond to it. but you didnt real post anything other then he makes alot of money and he would be better here without anything to support it

Lol. See, you didn't read my posts. Thanks for proving my point.

Now as I said. Let's agree to disagree. Don't get emotional over it.

[Paradise]

Read on Twitter

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Kaiser30]

Kent Bazemore was as good/better with the lakers then the hawks, across the board. Kenny didnt turn bazemore into anything. Demarre Carrole is the guy kenny really worked magic on.

Based on what?
If there's any substance to this comment, how come the better Bazemore could only get 4M/2y on the market while the worse Bazemore was highly coveted and secured a 70+M deal?

[Curns13]

Kent Bazemore was as good/better with the lakers then the hawks, across the board. Kenny didnt turn bazemore into anything. Demarre Carrole is the guy kenny really worked magic on.

Based on what?
If there's any substance to this comment, how come the better Bazemore could only get 4M/2y on the market while the worse Bazemore was highly coveted and secured a 70+M deal?

Prok is right. Bazemore had career best numbers almost across the board with LA. It was only a 23 game run though so tiny sample size. Reason he didn't get paid was he also had his career worse numbers that same season with GS including a 6.2 PER.