The Official Allen Crabbe Thread

[treiz]

Trust me I think the Crabbe trade was a minor **** up and he’s not immune to criticism. It definitely impacted our flexibility but it truly was the equivalent of signing Crabbe for a 3 year deal at 12 mill a year, if not better since Nicholson was owed more than Bojan the season before and Crabbes salary decreases while Nicholson’s increases.

But to say that 24 mill of Crabbes remaining 56 mill wasnt a cost paid to acquire Jarrett Allen is just false.

The point is that money would be there anyway, it was the cost of acquiring a 1st which Marks absolutely ****ing nailed. We added 12 mill a year for Crabbe, that’s much less than what we would have to pay in total if we had just signed KCP, JJ Redick, Porter or anyone else outright. Idk why you can’t see past your agenda and realize this.

If it is equivalent to that, you're missing a key point here. We'd still have Nicholson on the roster, which could be a positive or a negative depending on your view point but he would still be here if that was the case. Now there's 2 benefit to that:

Firstly, Crabbe at $12m is a much more manageable asset since he could be more easily integrated in any sort of trade scenario. Nicholson can also be used as a fill-in considerng he's only at $7m a year, worst case is we stretch his contract which saves us $2m a year but for 2 more years I believe.

But the point of why people were against the contract is because we didn't need to add an extra $12m to the payroll. We are a rebuilding team, we had Harris who last year had similar production on a MUCH cheaper contract, there was no need to make that move that literally put us near the cap. Same thing goes for Reddick/Porter etc, we don't need to sign them, I don't understand how you can't see that this was money that didn't need to be spent and trying to make it look pretty and justify it doesn't make any sense especially if (according to your first paragraph) you valued our flexibility.

[Netaman]

They did conveniently dump a $7M dead weight for the next 3 years as part of the deal to get Crabbe. So if you believe we got the pick from WAS more because of our willingness to take back Nicholson than acquire Bogdonovic, in return for taking on Crabbe Portland helped absorb a good chunk of the cost we paid to get Jarrett Allen.

This is spot on. They had no plans to keep Bogdanovic and didn’t even try. Exactly the way we should be thinking about Crabbe. He was the equivalent of a 36 mill/3 year FA signing. Only difference is that he can’t be traded as easily as someone actually on that deal.

Anyone who refuses to admit that those two are basically equivalent has an agenda.

I'm really curious as to how both you and Netamans maths work on this, because this trade clearly added $12m in salary as opposed to saving money. If player A makes $7m and you do a player-for-player trade for player B who's getting paid $19m, that's a $12m difference.

We didn't 'dump' $7m, we paid an additional $12m to get rid of player A for B especially since they both have the same contract lengths. That's absurd.

I also don't understand why Bojan has anything to do with this considering that those two weren't done in tandem. Marks was heavily shopping Bojan from practically the start of the season and Marks was holding out for the best offer possible, it's completely unrelated to the Nicholson for Crabbe trade.

I see the math exactly how you laid it out above (bolded). Adding Crabbe had a net increase of $12M on our cap. My point was that I think it's a little bit disingenuous when some act like his $19M contract is crushing for our cap or that we should have also received a 1st round pick along with him. Dumping Nicholson was the equivalent value of a 1st round pick (or close). Dumping his contract helped cover a good chunk of Crabbe's bloated contract. For the net increase of $12M ($37M total over 3 years) I don't think we could have found a better player than Crabbe in FA or via salary dump.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

Trust me I think the Crabbe trade was a minor **** up and he’s not immune to criticism. It definitely impacted our flexibility but it truly was the equivalent of signing Crabbe for a 3 year deal at 12 mill a year, if not better since Nicholson was owed more than Bojan the season before and Crabbes salary decreases while Nicholson’s increases.

But to say that 24 mill of Crabbes remaining 56 mill wasnt a cost paid to acquire Jarrett Allen is just false.

The point is that money would be there anyway, it was the cost of acquiring a 1st which Marks absolutely ****ing nailed. We added 12 mill a year for Crabbe, that’s much less than what we would have to pay in total if we had just signed KCP, JJ Redick, Porter or anyone else outright. Idk why you can’t see past your agenda and realize this.

If it is equivalent to that, you're missing a key point here. We'd still have Nicholson on the roster, which could be a positive or a negative depending on your view point but he would still be here if that was the case. Now there's 2 benefit to that:

Firstly, Crabbe at $12m is a much more manageable asset since he could be more easily integrated in any sort of trade scenario. Nicholson can also be used as a fill-in considerng he's only at $7m a year, worst case is we stretch his contract which saves us $2m a year but for 2 more years I believe.

But the point of why people were against the contract is because we didn't need to add an extra $12m to the payroll. We are a rebuilding team, we had Harris who last year had similar production on a MUCH cheaper contract, there was no need to make that move that literally put us near the cap. Same thing goes for Reddick/Porter etc, we don't need to sign them, I don't understand how you can't see that this was money that didn't need to be spent and trying to make it look pretty and justify it doesn't make any sense especially if (according to your first paragraph) you valued our flexibility.

I do value our flexibility, however I also value not being the laughingstock o the league again and making sure we didn’t send 3 straight top 3 picks to other teams.

Marks and Atkinson did it as a move to help now and in the future. They admitted to having pressure from ownership to show progress. And the Crabbe trade was by far the cheapest option to improve.

I already conceded the point he’s harder to trade. Concession is something you should learn about. However there’s no reason to believe they planned on trading him. Nicholson being on the roster is a negative even if he was on a minimum deal cause the dude isn’t an NBA player and is a waste of a roster spot and any money you give him. If he was still in the league maybe you’d have an argument but he isn’t.

Also Crabbe and Harris aren’t the same and that’s clear to anyone who isn’t biased. While their offensive games are similar, Harris is nowhere near Crabbe as a defender and rebounder. In fact if we had Harris on the floor the last 2 games instead of Crabbe, there’s a good chance we would’ve lost. There’s no way Harris blocks Fournier’s game winner, grabs all the clutch boards Crabbe did or out jumps Andrew Wiggins on a game winning tip in attempt. Also there’s nothing wrong with having 2 shooters on the roster, in fact now we have 3 and plenty of teams have a similar number.

[SpeedyG]

Trust me I think the Crabbe trade was a minor **** up and he’s not immune to criticism. It definitely impacted our flexibility but it truly was the equivalent of signing Crabbe for a 3 year deal at 12 mill a year, if not better since Nicholson was owed more than Bojan the season before and Crabbes salary decreases while Nicholson’s increases.

But to say that 24 mill of Crabbes remaining 56 mill wasnt a cost paid to acquire Jarrett Allen is just false.

The point is that money would be there anyway, it was the cost of acquiring a 1st which Marks absolutely ****ing nailed. We added 12 mill a year for Crabbe, that’s much less than what we would have to pay in total if we had just signed KCP, JJ Redick, Porter or anyone else outright. Idk why you can’t see past your agenda and realize this.

If it is equivalent to that, you're missing a key point here. We'd still have Nicholson on the roster, which could be a positive or a negative depending on your view point but he would still be here if that was the case. Now there's 2 benefit to that:

Firstly, Crabbe at $12m is a much more manageable asset since he could be more easily integrated in any sort of trade scenario. Nicholson can also be used as a fill-in considerng he's only at $7m a year, worst case is we stretch his contract which saves us $2m a year but for 2 more years I believe.

But the point of why people were against the contract is because we didn't need to add an extra $12m to the payroll. We are a rebuilding team, we had Harris who last year had similar production on a MUCH cheaper contract, there was no need to make that move that literally put us near the cap. Same thing goes for Reddick/Porter etc, we don't need to sign them, I don't understand how you can't see that this was money that didn't need to be spent and trying to make it look pretty and justify it doesn't make any sense especially if (according to your first paragraph) you valued our flexibility.

I do value our flexibility, however I also value not being the laughingstock o the league again and making sure we didn’t send 3 straight top 3 picks to other teams.

Marks and Atkinson did it as a move to help now and in the future. They admitted to having pressure from ownership to show progress. And the Crabbe trade was by far the cheapest option to improve.

I already conceded the point he’s harder to trade. Concession is something you should learn about. However there’s no reason to believe they planned on trading him. Nicholson being on the roster is a negative even if he was on a minimum deal cause the dude isn’t an NBA player and is a waste of a roster spot and any money you give him. If he was still in the league maybe you’d have an argument but he isn’t.

Also Crabbe and Harris aren’t the same and that’s clear to anyone who isn’t biased. While their offensive games are similar, Harris is nowhere near Crabbe as a defender and rebounder. In fact if we had Harris on the floor the last 2 games instead of Crabbe, there’s a good chance we would’ve lost. There’s no way Harris blocks Fournier’s game winner, grabs all the clutch boards Crabbe did or out jumps Andrew Wiggins on a game winning tip in attempt. Also there’s nothing wrong with having 2 shooters on the roster, in fact now we have 3 and plenty of teams have a similar number.

Crabbe and Harris offensive game aren't the same. Crabbe has shown to be a better rebounder and defender but Harris is much better at moving without the ball.

We don't win lastb night withoutbCrabbes defense and rebounding, but we also don't win without Harris last night.

[treiz]

This is spot on. They had no plans to keep Bogdanovic and didn’t even try. Exactly the way we should be thinking about Crabbe. He was the equivalent of a 36 mill/3 year FA signing. Only difference is that he can’t be traded as easily as someone actually on that deal.

Anyone who refuses to admit that those two are basically equivalent has an agenda.

I'm really curious as to how both you and Netamans maths work on this, because this trade clearly added $12m in salary as opposed to saving money. If player A makes $7m and you do a player-for-player trade for player B who's getting paid $19m, that's a $12m difference.

We didn't 'dump' $7m, we paid an additional $12m to get rid of player A for B especially since they both have the same contract lengths. That's absurd.

I also don't understand why Bojan has anything to do with this considering that those two weren't done in tandem. Marks was heavily shopping Bojan from practically the start of the season and Marks was holding out for the best offer possible, it's completely unrelated to the Nicholson for Crabbe trade.

I see the math exactly how you laid it out above (bolded). Adding Crabbe had a net increase of $12M on our cap. My point was that I think it's a little bit disingenuous when some act like his $19M contract is crushing for our cap or that we should have also received a 1st round pick along with him. Dumping Nicholson was the equivalent value of a 1st round pick (or close). Dumping his contract helped cover a good chunk of Crabbe's bloated contract. For the net increase of $12M ($37M total over 3 years) I don't think we could have found a better player than Crabbe in FA or via salary dump.

A $19 million contract is not crushing by itself, but considering the context on who that was spent on (a role player), when it was spent (towards the back end of the offseason after we didn’t sign Porter/KCP/Reddick) our cap situation now and in the upcoming years (with our core needing extensions soon, despite them not having reached their full potential yet) and the fact that we didn’t get any other meaningful asset for helping out a team in dire need (Portland was past the tax threshold) is what makes this a tough pill to swallow.

If dumping Nicholson is worth a first round pick to dump, Portland dumping Crabbe should’ve been at least worth 2 first rounders. Not just that, but we had no immediate reason to dump Nicholson, we were under the cap, unlike Portland who actually needed to shed money. We had soooooo much leverage that Marks didn’t take advantage of.

[treiz]

Trust me I think the Crabbe trade was a minor **** up and he’s not immune to criticism. It definitely impacted our flexibility but it truly was the equivalent of signing Crabbe for a 3 year deal at 12 mill a year, if not better since Nicholson was owed more than Bojan the season before and Crabbes salary decreases while Nicholson’s increases.

But to say that 24 mill of Crabbes remaining 56 mill wasnt a cost paid to acquire Jarrett Allen is just false.

The point is that money would be there anyway, it was the cost of acquiring a 1st which Marks absolutely ****ing nailed. We added 12 mill a year for Crabbe, that’s much less than what we would have to pay in total if we had just signed KCP, JJ Redick, Porter or anyone else outright. Idk why you can’t see past your agenda and realize this.

If it is equivalent to that, you're missing a key point here. We'd still have Nicholson on the roster, which could be a positive or a negative depending on your view point but he would still be here if that was the case. Now there's 2 benefit to that:

Firstly, Crabbe at $12m is a much more manageable asset since he could be more easily integrated in any sort of trade scenario. Nicholson can also be used as a fill-in considerng he's only at $7m a year, worst case is we stretch his contract which saves us $2m a year but for 2 more years I believe.

But the point of why people were against the contract is because we didn't need to add an extra $12m to the payroll. We are a rebuilding team, we had Harris who last year had similar production on a MUCH cheaper contract, there was no need to make that move that literally put us near the cap. Same thing goes for Reddick/Porter etc, we don't need to sign them, I don't understand how you can't see that this was money that didn't need to be spent and trying to make it look pretty and justify it doesn't make any sense especially if (according to your first paragraph) you valued our flexibility.

I do value our flexibility, however I also value not being the laughingstock o the league again and making sure we didn’t send 3 straight top 3 picks to other teams.

Marks and Atkinson did it as a move to help now and in the future. They admitted to having pressure from ownership to show progress. And the Crabbe trade was by far the cheapest option to improve.

I already conceded the point he’s harder to trade. Concession is something you should learn about. However there’s no reason to believe they planned on trading him. Nicholson being on the roster is a negative even if he was on a minimum deal cause the dude isn’t an NBA player and is a waste of a roster spot and any money you give him. If he was still in the league maybe you’d have an argument but he isn’t.

Also Crabbe and Harris aren’t the same and that’s clear to anyone who isn’t biased. While their offensive games are similar, Harris is nowhere near Crabbe as a defender and rebounder. In fact if we had Harris on the floor the last 2 games instead of Crabbe, there’s a good chance we would’ve lost. There’s no way Harris blocks Fournier’s game winner, grabs all the clutch boards Crabbe did or out jumps Andrew Wiggins on a game winning tip in attempt. Also there’s nothing wrong with having 2 shooters on the roster, in fact now we have 3 and plenty of teams have a similar number.

So let’s take a step back here, we both agree that trading for Crabbe really put a hard dent on our flexibility not just now but moving forward. So why are you trying to butter this trade up and trying to put lipstick on a pig? Why are you trying to implement some false mathematics to try and justify this trade? You’ve already conceded that this was a bad trade by Marks? Why justify it? That was the whole point I was trying to make.

Ok that’s fair, how many wins do you think Crabbe adds to this team? 2 or 3 wins max if we’re being optimistic, you really think that’s worth the additional $12m a year he’s being paid? Also it wasn’t the cheapest option, the cheapest option BY FAR is KCP for what he signed for if an addition was to be made. This was a panic move that was made at the end of the offseason when it didn’t need to be done. We already had a glut of wings, young ones who showed great promise last year (I mean Whitehead’s barely getting any minutes).

Concede what? You’ve barely made an effort to answer my question regarding you trying to falsify numbers like you’re some slick accountant. Also, Acy, Kilpatrick, Mozgov are hardly NBA players too and could be considered negatives (remember when everyone was bitching about Acy?) on this roster. They could all easily be playing abroad if it weren’t for the Nets. You make it seem like there’s some big gap between those players and Nicholson. They’re at the end of the bench for a lottery team for a reason.

So just because one is a bit longer than the other they’re not the same player? Despite them having the same roles and the same skills and have the same production? Nowhere near? Just because he’s got a bit more length than Harris he’s an infinitely better defender? Now that’s biased if I’ve ever seen one. You make it seem like Crabbe is some sort of first team all-defender out here. I know you’ve got a hard on for the guy but relax buddy

Again no problem with adding more shooters, it’s why I’m not having a go at the Stauskas deal, because that didn’t cost $19m and we actually got meaningful assets out of that deal.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

I'm really curious as to how both you and Netamans maths work on this, because this trade clearly added $12m in salary as opposed to saving money. If player A makes $7m and you do a player-for-player trade for player B who's getting paid $19m, that's a $12m difference.

We didn't 'dump' $7m, we paid an additional $12m to get rid of player A for B especially since they both have the same contract lengths. That's absurd.

I also don't understand why Bojan has anything to do with this considering that those two weren't done in tandem. Marks was heavily shopping Bojan from practically the start of the season and Marks was holding out for the best offer possible, it's completely unrelated to the Nicholson for Crabbe trade.

I see the math exactly how you laid it out above (bolded). Adding Crabbe had a net increase of $12M on our cap. My point was that I think it's a little bit disingenuous when some act like his $19M contract is crushing for our cap or that we should have also received a 1st round pick along with him. Dumping Nicholson was the equivalent value of a 1st round pick (or close). Dumping his contract helped cover a good chunk of Crabbe's bloated contract. For the net increase of $12M ($37M total over 3 years) I don't think we could have found a better player than Crabbe in FA or via salary dump.

A $19 million contract is not crushing by itself, but considering the context on who that was spent on (a role player), when it was spent (towards the back end of the offseason after we didn’t sign Porter/KCP/Reddick) our cap situation now and in the upcoming years (with our core needing extensions soon, despite them not having reached their full potential yet) and the fact that we didn’t get any other meaningful asset for helping out a team in dire need (Portland was past the tax threshold) is what makes this a tough pill to swallow.

If dumping Nicholson is worth a first round pick to dump, Portland dumping Crabbe should’ve been at least worth 2 first rounders. Not just that, but we had no immediate reason to dump Nicholson, we were under the cap, unlike Portland who actually needed to shed money. We had soooooo much leverage that Marks didn’t take advantage of.

Marks chose Crabbe over KCP and made the right call. I don’t understand your point on the timing. He clearly exhausted all his options and then got Crabbe for 12 mill a year. It’s wasnt a panick move, he starts for this team.

The asset was getting a starter quality player for a scrub who’s now in China.

And no we don’t deserve 2 1sts because Crabbe is not all dead money. Like I said it was a swap of equally overpaid players and we were already compensated for that wasted money with Washington’s 1st.

If Crabbe was on a 12 mill deal and we acquired him for a scrub on the vets min, no one would complain. That’s basically what happened here. And don’t bring up that matching salaries in trades BS cause we’ve already been over the fact that he was acquired to be a part of the core.

Your falsifying numbers claim is nonsense. And your hard on comment is incredibly immature. Those numbers are facts. Just because they don’t match up with your opinion doesn’t mean they’re false. There’s plenty of people who view the trade that way including Marks because that’s actually how it went down.

My point about Harris was that they’re clearly not clones and it’s valuable to have both on the roster. If you don’t see the difference between the two then who’s really the biased one?

Also there’s nothing wrong with making a win now move especially when we don’t have our pick, haven’t had it for years and attendance/viewership have been pathetic.

Also Kilpatrick is still in the NBA and Acy plays meaningful minutes for this team. Are you really suggesting we should’ve kept Nicholson who is even more useless than Mozgov because there’s other scrubs on the roster?

I’m starting to think that KCP wasn’t an option. The dude is a moron, a terrible influence on our young guys and currently can’t play in road games because he’s on house arrest.

I’m saying that there were legitimate reasons for the decision. And I only view at as a slight negative at the moment with potential to turn it around and make it worth it. These last 2 games I think we’ve really seen what he brings to the table outside of shooting.

[TheBrooklynKidd]

If it is equivalent to that, you're missing a key point here. We'd still have Nicholson on the roster, which could be a positive or a negative depending on your view point but he would still be here if that was the case. Now there's 2 benefit to that:

Firstly, Crabbe at $12m is a much more manageable asset since he could be more easily integrated in any sort of trade scenario. Nicholson can also be used as a fill-in considerng he's only at $7m a year, worst case is we stretch his contract which saves us $2m a year but for 2 more years I believe.

But the point of why people were against the contract is because we didn't need to add an extra $12m to the payroll. We are a rebuilding team, we had Harris who last year had similar production on a MUCH cheaper contract, there was no need to make that move that literally put us near the cap. Same thing goes for Reddick/Porter etc, we don't need to sign them, I don't understand how you can't see that this was money that didn't need to be spent and trying to make it look pretty and justify it doesn't make any sense especially if (according to your first paragraph) you valued our flexibility.

I do value our flexibility, however I also value not being the laughingstock o the league again and making sure we didn’t send 3 straight top 3 picks to other teams.

Marks and Atkinson did it as a move to help now and in the future. They admitted to having pressure from ownership to show progress. And the Crabbe trade was by far the cheapest option to improve.

I already conceded the point he’s harder to trade. Concession is something you should learn about. However there’s no reason to believe they planned on trading him. Nicholson being on the roster is a negative even if he was on a minimum deal cause the dude isn’t an NBA player and is a waste of a roster spot and any money you give him. If he was still in the league maybe you’d have an argument but he isn’t.

Also Crabbe and Harris aren’t the same and that’s clear to anyone who isn’t biased. While their offensive games are similar, Harris is nowhere near Crabbe as a defender and rebounder. In fact if we had Harris on the floor the last 2 games instead of Crabbe, there’s a good chance we would’ve lost. There’s no way Harris blocks Fournier’s game winner, grabs all the clutch boards Crabbe did or out jumps Andrew Wiggins on a game winning tip in attempt. Also there’s nothing wrong with having 2 shooters on the roster, in fact now we have 3 and plenty of teams have a similar number.

Crabbe and Harris offensive game aren't the same. Crabbe has shown to be a better rebounder and defender but Harris is much better at moving without the ball.

We don't win lastb night withoutbCrabbes defense and rebounding, but we also don't win without Harris last night.

I wasn’t trying to discredit Harris. I was trying to refute the point that just because we have one means the other is expendable. Both contribute to this team.

[Claud]

Progress!

[treiz]

Marks chose Crabbe over KCP and made the right call. I don’t understand your point on the timing. He clearly exhausted all his options and then got Crabbe for 12 mill a year. It’s wasnt a panick move, he starts for this team.

The asset was getting a starter quality player for a scrub who’s now in China.

And no we don’t deserve 2 1sts because Crabbe is not all dead money. Like I said it was a swap of equally overpaid players and we were already compensated for that wasted money with Washington’s 1st.

If Crabbe was on a 12 mill deal and we acquired him for a scrub on the vets min, no one would complain. That’s basically what happened here. And don’t bring up that matching salaries in trades BS cause we’ve already been over the fact that he was acquired to be a part of the core.

Your falsifying numbers claim is nonsense. And your hard on comment is incredibly immature. Those numbers are facts. Just because they don’t match up with your opinion doesn’t mean they’re false. There’s plenty of people who view the trade that way including Marks because that’s actually how it went down.

My point about Harris was that they’re clearly not clones and it’s valuable to have both on the roster. If you don’t see the difference between the two then who’s really the biased one?

Also there’s nothing wrong with making a win now move especially when we don’t have our pick, haven’t had it for years and attendance/viewership have been pathetic.

Also Kilpatrick is still in the NBA and Acy plays meaningful minutes for this team. Are you really suggesting we should’ve kept Nicholson who is even more useless than Mozgov because there’s other scrubs on the roster?

I’m starting to think that KCP wasn’t an option. The dude is a moron, a terrible influence on our young guys and currently can’t play in road games because he’s on house arrest.

I’m saying that there were legitimate reasons for the decision. And I only view at as a slight negative at the moment with potential to turn it around and make it worth it. These last 2 games I think we’ve really seen what he brings to the table outside of shooting.

My point was on the timing was how late it was in the offseason, it was at a point when we already traded for Russell and Mozgov, we already had our pick, yes he struck out but that doesn't mean you have to go and get whoever's cheapest, in this case it was better to just stand pat and accept you struck out, we're rebuilding, so there was no rush whatsoever. The reason why KCP is a better deal, is simply because he signed a 1-year deal, at least if he flops he's off the books the next season. How can you say it's not a panic move when Crabbe was his last option and Marks didn't use any of the glaring leverage he had? When Portland were desperate for some cap relief to get under the luxury tax threshold, Marks should've swindled them. I mean if he was able to get Okafor/Stauskas/2nd round pick for Booker, how was he only able to get Crabbe for Nicholson considering the situation Portland was in AND they had 3 draft picks? He panicked because he wanted a shooter, and overpaid to get Crabbe.

Starter quality? For a lottery team, and maybe potentially down the line I'll give you that. Hardly an asset when you're paying $12m more per year and adds maybe 2-3 wins to the team (at best). You do know that the first was for taking Nicholson AND trading Bogdanovic right? And according to your logic, taking $7m in dead money is worth a pick, but then completely ignore the fact that the other player is making 2.5x more. Fair enough that other player does contribute more but 2.5x more? Let's not get silly here.

Also, so you think an early 20s first round pick is enough compensation for paying $19m per year for the next 3 years? If so then fair enough, but you also have to realise that this was 2 separate deals, I don't understand why you're trying to lump it together to try and justify it. So again by your logic, since we made a killing on the Okafor/Russell/Carroll deals, we should severely overpay on the next trade (if it includes the assets involved in those trades) we make just because we "were already compensated" on the deals I mentioned? Seriously?

It is falsifying numbers, I've still yet to see somebody prove to me without trying to play like some slick accountant how we "dumped" or "saved" $7million on this trade, where is this fact you claim? How did we dump $7million, when that $7million is still in the books, but instead of giving that money to Nicholson, it's going to Crabbe instead? All we did was add an extra $12million to the payroll in order to take Crabbe and dump Nicholson, that's not the same thing. This false narrative comes up every month or so and I've been begging for somebody to give me their calculations without pretending that we signed Crabbe for $12m per year as a FA, since that's not what clearly happened. If it did, Nicholson would still be on the roster and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If your justification of the trade is based on his progress/improvement this season, that's a lot more viable since it's more tangible. You can see the progress so far, but also you can see Kenny essentially doing the same thing with Crabbe as he's done with RHJ last year and Levert to start the year, and that is to let them play through their mistakes and hope that they learn from it, as long as they play hard on D they'll be given leeway. But to justify it by saying "we saved $7million" on this deal, that just doesn't make any sense.

So me saying "hard on" is immature yet you're allowed to make some sass with your "concede" comment? Cool bro.

So Harris and Crabbe don't have the same role on the team? They don't have similar skillsets? They don't have similar production? Yes one might be better than the other in one aspect or another, but are their main roles not to shoot 3s and play D? Seriously look at their numbers, and tell me again who's biased, especially coming from the guy who literally just pretended Crabbe was some sort of All-NBA first team defender compared to Harris just because he had a bit more length. Also, I never said having both is not valuable, that's clear from me not having a dig about the OK4/Sauce trade for example and me not making this discussion about Crabbe but about Marks.

Ok cool, there is nothing wrong with making a win now move. It was just unnecessary considering the situation that this was only Year 2 (I repeat year 2!) of our rebuild, so why rush it? Whether we had a pick or not doesn't matter, because it clearly didn't matter the year before.

Yes Kilpatrick is still in the NBA, playing garbage minutes for a good team (who knows if he lasts the season), and Q right now is playing 20mpg on a lottery team. These 2 players (as much as I love them for helping bring the culture into this organisation) are end of the bench guys for a good team, heck even for not so good teams. Once Allen and Okafor starts to play more, what do you think will happen to Acy? These are end of the bench guys in the NBA, guys who could be easily replaced and easily be playing in Europe/China. I'm not suggesting that we should've kept Nicholson, but to portray Nicholson as dead weight but also ignore the fact that we have these guys on our roster playing meaningful minutes, something's amiss there. Even Zeller (who's been a very nice surprise) could've easily been playing in Europe/China right now, remember how late he was signed this offseason?

[TheBrooklynKidd]

Marks chose Crabbe over KCP and made the right call. I don’t understand your point on the timing. He clearly exhausted all his options and then got Crabbe for 12 mill a year. It’s wasnt a panick move, he starts for this team.

The asset was getting a starter quality player for a scrub who’s now in China.

And no we don’t deserve 2 1sts because Crabbe is not all dead money. Like I said it was a swap of equally overpaid players and we were already compensated for that wasted money with Washington’s 1st.

If Crabbe was on a 12 mill deal and we acquired him for a scrub on the vets min, no one would complain. That’s basically what happened here. And don’t bring up that matching salaries in trades BS cause we’ve already been over the fact that he was acquired to be a part of the core.

Your falsifying numbers claim is nonsense. And your hard on comment is incredibly immature. Those numbers are facts. Just because they don’t match up with your opinion doesn’t mean they’re false. There’s plenty of people who view the trade that way including Marks because that’s actually how it went down.

My point about Harris was that they’re clearly not clones and it’s valuable to have both on the roster. If you don’t see the difference between the two then who’s really the biased one?

Also there’s nothing wrong with making a win now move especially when we don’t have our pick, haven’t had it for years and attendance/viewership have been pathetic.

Also Kilpatrick is still in the NBA and Acy plays meaningful minutes for this team. Are you really suggesting we should’ve kept Nicholson who is even more useless than Mozgov because there’s other scrubs on the roster?

I’m starting to think that KCP wasn’t an option. The dude is a moron, a terrible influence on our young guys and currently can’t play in road games because he’s on house arrest.

I’m saying that there were legitimate reasons for the decision. And I only view at as a slight negative at the moment with potential to turn it around and make it worth it. These last 2 games I think we’ve really seen what he brings to the table outside of shooting.

My point was on the timing was how late it was in the offseason, it was at a point when we already traded for Russell and Mozgov, we already had our pick, yes he struck out but that doesn't mean you have to go and get whoever's cheapest, in this case it was better to just stand pat and accept you struck out, we're rebuilding, so there was no rush whatsoever. The reason why KCP is a better deal, is simply because he signed a 1-year deal, at least if he flops he's off the books the next season. How can you say it's not a panic move when Crabbe was his last option and Marks didn't use any of the glaring leverage he had? When Portland were desperate for some cap relief to get under the luxury tax threshold, Marks should've swindled them. I mean if he was able to get Okafor/Stauskas/2nd round pick for Booker, how was he only able to get Crabbe for Nicholson considering the situation Portland was in AND they had 3 draft picks? He panicked because he wanted a shooter, and overpaid to get Crabbe.

Starter quality? For a lottery team, and maybe potentially down the line I'll give you that. Hardly an asset when you're paying $12m more per year and adds maybe 2-3 wins to the team (at best). You do know that the first was for taking Nicholson AND trading Bogdanovic right? And according to your logic, taking $7m in dead money is worth a pick, but then completely ignore the fact that the other player is making 2.5x more. Fair enough that other player does contribute more but 2.5x more? Let's not get silly here.

Also, so you think an early 20s first round pick is enough compensation for paying $19m per year for the next 3 years? If so then fair enough, but you also have to realise that this was 2 separate deals, I don't understand why you're trying to lump it together to try and justify it. So again by your logic, since we made a killing on the Okafor/Russell/Carroll deals, we should severely overpay on the next trade (if it includes the assets involved in those trades) we make just because we "were already compensated" on the deals I mentioned? Seriously?

It is falsifying numbers, I've still yet to see somebody prove to me without trying to play like some slick accountant how we "dumped" or "saved" $7million on this trade, where is this fact you claim? How did we dump $7million, when that $7million is still in the books, but instead of giving that money to Nicholson, it's going to Crabbe instead? All we did was add an extra $12million to the payroll in order to take Crabbe and dump Nicholson, that's not the same thing. This false narrative comes up every month or so and I've been begging for somebody to give me their calculations without pretending that we signed Crabbe for $12m per year as a FA, since that's not what clearly happened. If it did, Nicholson would still be on the roster and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If your justification of the trade is based on his progress/improvement this season, that's a lot more viable since it's more tangible. You can see the progress so far, but also you can see Kenny essentially doing the same thing with Crabbe as he's done with RHJ last year and Levert to start the year, and that is to let them play through their mistakes and hope that they learn from it, as long as they play hard on D they'll be given leeway. But to justify it by saying "we saved $7million" on this deal, that just doesn't make any sense.

So me saying "hard on" is immature yet you're allowed to make some sass with your "concede" comment? Cool bro.

So Harris and Crabbe don't have the same role on the team? They don't have similar skillsets? They don't have similar production? Yes one might be better than the other in one aspect or another, but are their main roles not to shoot 3s and play D? Seriously look at their numbers, and tell me again who's biased, especially coming from the guy who literally just pretended Crabbe was some sort of All-NBA first team defender compared to Harris just because he had a bit more length. Also, I never said having both is not valuable, that's clear from me not having a dig about the OK4/Sauce trade for example and me not making this discussion about Crabbe but about Marks.

Ok cool, there is nothing wrong with making a win now move. It was just unnecessary considering the situation that this was only Year 2 (I repeat year 2!) of our rebuild, so why rush it? Whether we had a pick or not doesn't matter, because it clearly didn't matter the year before.

Yes Kilpatrick is still in the NBA, playing garbage minutes for a good team (who knows if he lasts the season), and Q right now is playing 20mpg on a lottery team. These 2 players (as much as I love them for helping bring the culture into this organisation) are end of the bench guys for a good team, heck even for not so good teams. Once Allen and Okafor starts to play more, what do you think will happen to Acy? These are end of the bench guys in the NBA, guys who could be easily replaced and easily be playing in Europe/China. I'm not suggesting that we should've kept Nicholson, but to portray Nicholson as dead weight but also ignore the fact that we have these guys on our roster playing meaningful minutes, something's amiss there. Even Zeller (who's been a very nice surprise) could've easily been playing in Europe/China right now, remember how late he was signed this offseason?

First of all the Portland and Washington trades are intimately connected because Nicholson is in both. Plus Bojan was basically worthless, no one was giving up value for a half a year rental of a guy leading the worst team in the league and Washington didn’t try to resign him. They knew he was walking away the whole time.

The reason you can’t compare Philly/Portland deals is because Portland has a semi competent front office while the colangelos are bumbling idiots. Portland also only had 2 picks (traded up) and made it clear that they were not using them to dump salary earlier in the offseason. Also Marks most likely had to convince Portland to take Nicholson, I bet they didn’t come to Marks with him in the deal, why would anyone? And it doesn’t matter if KCP was a better deal because it was 1 year, he wasn’t what Marks was looking for clearly. This is not a rent a criminal for one year type of organization.

Crabbe is absolutely more than 2.5x as productive as Nicholson because not only did Nicholson not give you a single thing on the court, he was a negative by wasting a roster spot. At least Crabbe has NBA quality skills. Nicholson only takes away by being terrible on offense and defense. We couldn’t even calculate how many times better Crabbe is since Nicholson is literally a zero or a negative.

I also never said we dumped Nicholson. I said we turned a wasted roster spot into a starter by paying 12 mill a year. That’s why I say it’s exactly like a FA signing. It’s actually better because Nicholson was worse than an empty roster spot.

Crabbe is a much better defender than Harris, the advanced stats prove it as well and so does the eye test. Albeit no one has pretty defensive stats on this team. But here’s the thing, I can remember multiple times where opposing stars have purposely forced switches on to Harris and then abused him, that doesn’t happen to Crabbe who’s out here blocking shots in crunch time, guarding multiple positions and grabbing defensive boards like a power forward. He truly is much better at the other parts of the game, much of it has to do with his superior length and athleticism but it’s also a skill.

And I don’t think it was unnecessary. It really wasn’t year 2 of our rebuild, it may have been year 2 of Marks but the Nets had been rebuilding/declining for 4 years depending on where you want to mark it. The thing is that the team has been so disappointing in Brooklyn, how can you blame them for trying to win in order to save face and not send another top 3 pick to Boston? (This was before Kyrie). Crabbe was a guy they already scouted and they were basically gonna get him and a 1st round pick for less money than if they had just signed him outright, it’s a win in the big picture.

Acy and Kilpatrick at least have NBA skills. Kilpatrick can shoot and score while Acy is a very switchable forward who (used to) shoot. Those guys will probably get multiple chances in the league, while Nicholson signed a deal in China like the day after he was waived and stretched. They’re all scrubs but Kilpatrick/Acy are at least NBA scrubs.

Let’s leave the sass and pettiness behind us.

[steady]

Marks chose Crabbe over KCP and made the right call. I don’t understand your point on the timing. He clearly exhausted all his options and then got Crabbe for 12 mill a year. It’s wasnt a panick move, he starts for this team.

The asset was getting a starter quality player for a scrub who’s now in China.

And no we don’t deserve 2 1sts because Crabbe is not all dead money. Like I said it was a swap of equally overpaid players and we were already compensated for that wasted money with Washington’s 1st.

If Crabbe was on a 12 mill deal and we acquired him for a scrub on the vets min, no one would complain. That’s basically what happened here. And don’t bring up that matching salaries in trades BS cause we’ve already been over the fact that he was acquired to be a part of the core.

Your falsifying numbers claim is nonsense. And your hard on comment is incredibly immature. Those numbers are facts. Just because they don’t match up with your opinion doesn’t mean they’re false. There’s plenty of people who view the trade that way including Marks because that’s actually how it went down.

My point about Harris was that they’re clearly not clones and it’s valuable to have both on the roster. If you don’t see the difference between the two then who’s really the biased one?

Also there’s nothing wrong with making a win now move especially when we don’t have our pick, haven’t had it for years and attendance/viewership have been pathetic.

Also Kilpatrick is still in the NBA and Acy plays meaningful minutes for this team. Are you really suggesting we should’ve kept Nicholson who is even more useless than Mozgov because there’s other scrubs on the roster?

I’m starting to think that KCP wasn’t an option. The dude is a moron, a terrible influence on our young guys and currently can’t play in road games because he’s on house arrest.

I’m saying that there were legitimate reasons for the decision. And I only view at as a slight negative at the moment with potential to turn it around and make it worth it. These last 2 games I think we’ve really seen what he brings to the table outside of shooting.

My point was on the timing was how late it was in the offseason, it was at a point when we already traded for Russell and Mozgov, we already had our pick, yes he struck out but that doesn't mean you have to go and get whoever's cheapest, in this case it was better to just stand pat and accept you struck out, we're rebuilding, so there was no rush whatsoever. The reason why KCP is a better deal, is simply because he signed a 1-year deal, at least if he flops he's off the books the next season. How can you say it's not a panic move when Crabbe was his last option and Marks didn't use any of the glaring leverage he had? When Portland were desperate for some cap relief to get under the luxury tax threshold, Marks should've swindled them. I mean if he was able to get Okafor/Stauskas/2nd round pick for Booker, how was he only able to get Crabbe for Nicholson considering the situation Portland was in AND they had 3 draft picks? He panicked because he wanted a shooter, and overpaid to get Crabbe.

Starter quality? For a lottery team, and maybe potentially down the line I'll give you that. Hardly an asset when you're paying $12m more per year and adds maybe 2-3 wins to the team (at best). You do know that the first was for taking Nicholson AND trading Bogdanovic right? And according to your logic, taking $7m in dead money is worth a pick, but then completely ignore the fact that the other player is making 2.5x more. Fair enough that other player does contribute more but 2.5x more? Let's not get silly here.

Also, so you think an early 20s first round pick is enough compensation for paying $19m per year for the next 3 years? If so then fair enough, but you also have to realise that this was 2 separate deals, I don't understand why you're trying to lump it together to try and justify it. So again by your logic, since we made a killing on the Okafor/Russell/Carroll deals, we should severely overpay on the next trade (if it includes the assets involved in those trades) we make just because we "were already compensated" on the deals I mentioned? Seriously?

It is falsifying numbers, I've still yet to see somebody prove to me without trying to play like some slick accountant how we "dumped" or "saved" $7million on this trade, where is this fact you claim? How did we dump $7million, when that $7million is still in the books, but instead of giving that money to Nicholson, it's going to Crabbe instead? All we did was add an extra $12million to the payroll in order to take Crabbe and dump Nicholson, that's not the same thing. This false narrative comes up every month or so and I've been begging for somebody to give me their calculations without pretending that we signed Crabbe for $12m per year as a FA, since that's not what clearly happened. If it did, Nicholson would still be on the roster and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If your justification of the trade is based on his progress/improvement this season, that's a lot more viable since it's more tangible. You can see the progress so far, but also you can see Kenny essentially doing the same thing with Crabbe as he's done with RHJ last year and Levert to start the year, and that is to let them play through their mistakes and hope that they learn from it, as long as they play hard on D they'll be given leeway. But to justify it by saying "we saved $7million" on this deal, that just doesn't make any sense.

So me saying "hard on" is immature yet you're allowed to make some sass with your "concede" comment? Cool bro.

So Harris and Crabbe don't have the same role on the team? They don't have similar skillsets? They don't have similar production? Yes one might be better than the other in one aspect or another, but are their main roles not to shoot 3s and play D? Seriously look at their numbers, and tell me again who's biased, especially coming from the guy who literally just pretended Crabbe was some sort of All-NBA first team defender compared to Harris just because he had a bit more length. Also, I never said having both is not valuable, that's clear from me not having a dig about the OK4/Sauce trade for example and me not making this discussion about Crabbe but about Marks.

Ok cool, there is nothing wrong with making a win now move. It was just unnecessary considering the situation that this was only Year 2 (I repeat year 2!) of our rebuild, so why rush it? Whether we had a pick or not doesn't matter, because it clearly didn't matter the year before.

Yes Kilpatrick is still in the NBA, playing garbage minutes for a good team (who knows if he lasts the season), and Q right now is playing 20mpg on a lottery team. These 2 players (as much as I love them for helping bring the culture into this organisation) are end of the bench guys for a good team, heck even for not so good teams. Once Allen and Okafor starts to play more, what do you think will happen to Acy? These are end of the bench guys in the NBA, guys who could be easily replaced and easily be playing in Europe/China. I'm not suggesting that we should've kept Nicholson, but to portray Nicholson as dead weight but also ignore the fact that we have these guys on our roster playing meaningful minutes, something's amiss there. Even Zeller (who's been a very nice surprise) could've easily been playing in Europe/China right now, remember how late he was signed this offseason?

1. Marks didn't use any of the glaring leverage he had? Portland was desperate to get cap relief that's true. But are you forgetting they had three players (remember Meyers Leonard and Maurice Harkless) they could have dumped to achieve cap relief and of the three Crabbe was by far their most valuable player. Portland did not have to get rid of Crabbe for cap relief

2. KCP is a better deal.... I almost don't know how to respond to that. I will just say you should go speak to Lakers fan, they are so confused by Walton giving KCP 34 minutes a game that they are AC timely debate whether it is happening to butter up KCPs agent who is also Bron's agent? KCPs same terrible shot selection and bad FG percentages are still there, and I just don't see him improving

3. "He panicked because he wanted a shooter, and overpaid to get Crabbe." - are we really using the words panics with regard to Sean Marks. I would say Marks is capable of making mistakes. I would even say he plays it risky sometimes, but panic?. absolutely not . Are you forgetting this is the guy who got one of the best GMs in the League in Masai Ujiri to give up a 1st and a 2nd AND take on the friggin salary of Justin Hamilton In return for Nets agreeing to take a DeMarre Carroll.

[LKIRNets]

Marks chose Crabbe over KCP and made the right call. I don’t understand your point on the timing. He clearly exhausted all his options and then got Crabbe for 12 mill a year. It’s wasnt a panick move, he starts for this team.

The asset was getting a starter quality player for a scrub who’s now in China.

And no we don’t deserve 2 1sts because Crabbe is not all dead money. Like I said it was a swap of equally overpaid players and we were already compensated for that wasted money with Washington’s 1st.

If Crabbe was on a 12 mill deal and we acquired him for a scrub on the vets min, no one would complain. That’s basically what happened here. And don’t bring up that matching salaries in trades BS cause we’ve already been over the fact that he was acquired to be a part of the core.

Your falsifying numbers claim is nonsense. And your hard on comment is incredibly immature. Those numbers are facts. Just because they don’t match up with your opinion doesn’t mean they’re false. There’s plenty of people who view the trade that way including Marks because that’s actually how it went down.

My point about Harris was that they’re clearly not clones and it’s valuable to have both on the roster. If you don’t see the difference between the two then who’s really the biased one?

Also there’s nothing wrong with making a win now move especially when we don’t have our pick, haven’t had it for years and attendance/viewership have been pathetic.

Also Kilpatrick is still in the NBA and Acy plays meaningful minutes for this team. Are you really suggesting we should’ve kept Nicholson who is even more useless than Mozgov because there’s other scrubs on the roster?

I’m starting to think that KCP wasn’t an option. The dude is a moron, a terrible influence on our young guys and currently can’t play in road games because he’s on house arrest.

I’m saying that there were legitimate reasons for the decision. And I only view at as a slight negative at the moment with potential to turn it around and make it worth it. These last 2 games I think we’ve really seen what he brings to the table outside of shooting.

My point was on the timing was how late it was in the offseason, it was at a point when we already traded for Russell and Mozgov, we already had our pick, yes he struck out but that doesn't mean you have to go and get whoever's cheapest, in this case it was better to just stand pat and accept you struck out, we're rebuilding, so there was no rush whatsoever. The reason why KCP is a better deal, is simply because he signed a 1-year deal, at least if he flops he's off the books the next season. How can you say it's not a panic move when Crabbe was his last option and Marks didn't use any of the glaring leverage he had? When Portland were desperate for some cap relief to get under the luxury tax threshold, Marks should've swindled them. I mean if he was able to get Okafor/Stauskas/2nd round pick for Booker, how was he only able to get Crabbe for Nicholson considering the situation Portland was in AND they had 3 draft picks? He panicked because he wanted a shooter, and overpaid to get Crabbe.

Starter quality? For a lottery team, and maybe potentially down the line I'll give you that. Hardly an asset when you're paying $12m more per year and adds maybe 2-3 wins to the team (at best). You do know that the first was for taking Nicholson AND trading Bogdanovic right? And according to your logic, taking $7m in dead money is worth a pick, but then completely ignore the fact that the other player is making 2.5x more. Fair enough that other player does contribute more but 2.5x more? Let's not get silly here.

Also, so you think an early 20s first round pick is enough compensation for paying $19m per year for the next 3 years? If so then fair enough, but you also have to realise that this was 2 separate deals, I don't understand why you're trying to lump it together to try and justify it. So again by your logic, since we made a killing on the Okafor/Russell/Carroll deals, we should severely overpay on the next trade (if it includes the assets involved in those trades) we make just because we "were already compensated" on the deals I mentioned? Seriously?

It is falsifying numbers, I've still yet to see somebody prove to me without trying to play like some slick accountant how we "dumped" or "saved" $7million on this trade, where is this fact you claim? How did we dump $7million, when that $7million is still in the books, but instead of giving that money to Nicholson, it's going to Crabbe instead? All we did was add an extra $12million to the payroll in order to take Crabbe and dump Nicholson, that's not the same thing. This false narrative comes up every month or so and I've been begging for somebody to give me their calculations without pretending that we signed Crabbe for $12m per year as a FA, since that's not what clearly happened. If it did, Nicholson would still be on the roster and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If your justification of the trade is based on his progress/improvement this season, that's a lot more viable since it's more tangible. You can see the progress so far, but also you can see Kenny essentially doing the same thing with Crabbe as he's done with RHJ last year and Levert to start the year, and that is to let them play through their mistakes and hope that they learn from it, as long as they play hard on D they'll be given leeway. But to justify it by saying "we saved $7million" on this deal, that just doesn't make any sense.

So me saying "hard on" is immature yet you're allowed to make some sass with your "concede" comment? Cool bro.

So Harris and Crabbe don't have the same role on the team? They don't have similar skillsets? They don't have similar production? Yes one might be better than the other in one aspect or another, but are their main roles not to shoot 3s and play D? Seriously look at their numbers, and tell me again who's biased, especially coming from the guy who literally just pretended Crabbe was some sort of All-NBA first team defender compared to Harris just because he had a bit more length. Also, I never said having both is not valuable, that's clear from me not having a dig about the OK4/Sauce trade for example and me not making this discussion about Crabbe but about Marks.

Ok cool, there is nothing wrong with making a win now move. It was just unnecessary considering the situation that this was only Year 2 (I repeat year 2!) of our rebuild, so why rush it? Whether we had a pick or not doesn't matter, because it clearly didn't matter the year before.

Yes Kilpatrick is still in the NBA, playing garbage minutes for a good team (who knows if he lasts the season), and Q right now is playing 20mpg on a lottery team. These 2 players (as much as I love them for helping bring the culture into this organisation) are end of the bench guys for a good team, heck even for not so good teams. Once Allen and Okafor starts to play more, what do you think will happen to Acy? These are end of the bench guys in the NBA, guys who could be easily replaced and easily be playing in Europe/China. I'm not suggesting that we should've kept Nicholson, but to portray Nicholson as dead weight but also ignore the fact that we have these guys on our roster playing meaningful minutes, something's amiss there. Even Zeller (who's been a very nice surprise) could've easily been playing in Europe/China right now, remember how late he was signed this offseason?

[kamaze]

People complain about his salary as if Marks didn't give him that contract both of them like him, Marks and Atkinson. Like someone said this is his first year he'll be even better after he gets more experience in the motion offense under his belt. All he did was stand in the corner off the bench for Portland cut him some slack.
If Brooklyn wants talent in free agency they have to overpay they were lucky they had a horrible player making waaay to much in Nicholson.

They're building something special this team is fun to watch more so than any other year in Brooklyn.

[steady]

There are some weird numbers being floated

Nicholson was not 7 million in dead money --he was 21 million in dead money

No one -- owners, organization etc-- actually cares that much how much money these guys are being paid, of course they care a little but it's the impact t on cap space that matters in terms of future decisions. This is what restricts future flexibility. And If cap space is what we are concerned about then yes the difference between Crabbes salary and Nicholsons is what is important. Nicholson counted $7 mill per year against cap, Crabbe counts $19 mill per year, so the net Cap impact of getting rid of Nicholson and getting instead Crabbe is $12 million per year

'"You think an early 20s first round pick is enough compensation for paying $19m per year for the next 3 years?"

No one is saying that -- we're saying a first round pick is worth about $20 million in dumped salary so getting rid of Nicholson s contact could be seen as being somewhat similar to getting a first round pick . And yeah I think the majority on this board were and are pretty clear that if we'd gotten a 1st round pick for Crabbe that would have been a good deal

---

Why not just address the basic issue is Crabbe worth $12 million a year? Why make it out like the cap impact of Crabbes trade is $19 mill per year when it's clearly not given that we got rid of Nicholsons $7 mill per year for three years contract, in the same trade

[LKIRNets]

I'm about to make a Nets Defensive plays thread.

Anyone interested?

[Prokorov]

People complain about his salary as if Marks didn't give him that contract both of them like him, Marks and Atkinson. Like someone said this is his first year he'll be even better after he gets more experience in the motion offense under his belt. All he did was stand in the corner off the bench for Portland cut him some slack.
If Brooklyn wants talent in free agency they have to overpay they were lucky they had a horrible player making waaay to much in Nicholson.

They're building something special this team is fun to watch more so than any other year in Brooklyn.

they could have paid someone else 1/3 of that to "get better in year two" it was an awful contract. no way around it. but thats on marks not crabbe.

[Prokorov]

Why not just address the basic issue is Crabbe worth $12 million a year? Why make it out like the cap impact of Crabbes trade is $19 mill per year when it's clearly not given that we got rid of Nicholsons $7 mill per year for three years contract, in the same trade

Crabbe makes 19 million and counts 19 million against the cap. assuming we couldnt dump 7 million per year any other way is kind of insane. at the very least would could have stretched it to 3.9 million We could have used the pick we got with Carroll to move it as well if needed. maybe even the philly second rounder. who knows.

Either way, crabbe counts 19 million vs the cap and will in the future as well. there is no scenario were he only counts 12 million vs the cap.

Do Okafor and Staukus make a combined negative 2.2 million because we shipped out Booker?

[steady]

Why not just address the basic issue is Crabbe worth $12 million a year? Why make it out like the cap impact of Crabbes trade is $19 mill per year when it's clearly not given that we got rid of Nicholsons $7 mill per year for three years contract, in the same trade

Crabbe makes 19 million and counts 19 million against the cap. assuming we couldnt dump 7 million per year any other way is kind of insane. at the very least would could have stretched it to 3.9 million We could have used the pick we got with Carroll to move it as well if needed. maybe even the philly second rounder. who knows.

Either way, crabbe counts 19 million vs the cap and will in the future as well. there is no scenario were he only counts 12 million vs the cap.

Do Okafor and Staukus make a combined negative 2.2 million because we shipped out Booker?

Prok - let's be clear, do you actually care (a) how much money is coming out of the owners pocket or (b) how much Crabbes contract impacts our ability to sign players in future because of cap limitations. I think it's the cap implications that we care about . In that case the Booker trade is a really bad example because Booker was an expiring contract so his contract will have no impact whatsoever on the contracts the Nets can sign this offseason or in offseason in 2019, etc

By contrast Nicholsons contract does impact the cap for two more years after this season, just the way Crabbes does, for the same duration Crabbes does. So yes the fact that the dump of Nicholsons contract offsets $7 million of Crabbes contract per year -- in terms of cap space - does matter. It matters a lot

Why is the cap that Nicholson was taking up considered to be immaterial .. like air... ? As people say over and over on this board cap space has become more and more crucial and valuable, why does that not apply to the cap space that Nicholsons contract was eating? Is the ability to offer $20 m vs $13 m to a free agent insignificant

--

That we could have gotten rid of Nicholson contract in other ways .... am I missing something, why is that important? what we are talking about are cap implications of the deal Marks did make. And the cap implications are a net of $12 million.

[steady]

Sometimes I feel like people are eager to attack the deal that Marks was willing to make in 2016 for Crabbe -- and forget the trade Marks actually made (which included Nicholson and involved one less contract year)