2015 Off-season Thread

[Universe]

You're missing the picture.

Most of us believe that King had a mandate to get players here. We understand that the players failing to live up to their contract is not on him.

However, what is on him is the wasting of potential assets which could've helped soften the blow or even help fix the mess now.

Doing whatever it takes to get players doesn't mean paying as much as possible. You should always be shrewd with your deals no matter how much money you have. King was never shrewd.

He dealt and was fully confident that nothing would backfire. Hence the top-3 protection on the pick for Wallace. POR didn't want Wallace and were looking for an excuse to get rid of him. Even if King believes Wallace can help prove to D-Will that the Nets are serious about keeping him, he openly told the world that there was no one outside of the top 3 who was and would be better than Gerald Wallace.

In that moment, we see King's talent evaluation and asset management skills at hand.

The fact that Portland wanted him off the team and that Wallace was a soon-to-be free agent should've been a signal to King that he could get Wallace cheaply. Either lottery-protect the pick or give POR a TPE and don't send the pick at all.

But no...King believed it wouldn't matter in the end. Not only did the player picked at our spot go on to win the Rookie of the Year, he was miles better than Gerald Wallace. Lillard is a perennial allstar while Wallace is racking up DNP-CDs and is on his way out of the league.

If you're given a mandate, that does not mean that you have free reign to be an idiot. If ownership wanted someone to be a puppet, they could've saved their money, hired a dog to answer the phone and have a few college kids do their bidding. They hired King because they thought he was actually a good GM. It was the same thing with the Avery. They thought he was good because he had the best winning percentage of any coach that wasn't hired.

They didn't realize why Billy King or Avery Johnson were available in the first place. They assumed that there are more good GMs and coaches than NBA teams and believed King would do well. They were wrong.

King sucked in Philly. He sucks here. There's no need to try to paint a different story. He's the worst GM in the league.

Then why hasn't he been fired?

Because ownership doesn't know what they're doing.

Hiring Avery was a bad idea. Hiring King was a bad idea. These are things that most on the board have said at the time that Avery and KIng were hired and when Wallace was traded for and re-signed. Heck, I remember almost punching a wall at my in-laws and being super-pissed the entire day when I heard Wallace was given that contract.

It's clear that they along with King are stubborn and would rather compound their mistakes by doing whatever they can to prove that their decision was good (e.g. giving Wallace a 4yr/$40mil deal when everyone was expecting a maximum of $8mil/yr over 2-3 years) than admitting their shortcomings and minimizing the negative impact.

As far as I'm concerned, they all can go if they're going to continue this nonsense. It doesn't matter if you want to spend tons of cash if you just waste most of it.

Or could it be he was doing exactly what the ownership wanted?

[kerry kittles]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/603423527069319168[/tweet]

Billy King selling low again

There isn't any scenario where we can sell high. Besides, if teams are approaching us then his value remains intact. If Mason can field us another 1st round pick then deal him. Upshaw, McCullough, Looney, Wood all have much high ceilings.

There isn't a scenario where we can sell high now, but this is from the article
"This task certainly would have been simpler, had the Nets sold high on Mason Plumlee and traded him when the calls were flooding in early the previous season ... when the going rate for centers was so favorable.

It's unavoidably tantalizing to think about what the Nets might have gotten for Plumlee, had they actively shopped him before he fell out of favor -- bearing in mind the two future first-round picks Denver extracted from Cleveland for Timofey Mozgov."

http://espn.go.com/blog/marc-stein/post ... n-priority

The Kings were so interested in Plumlee that they were willing to take the worst contract in the league to get him. The interest was much higher after he was named first team all rookie, played on team USA, he had a good stretch in December-January. At this moment his value is low - he couldn't get on the court in the playoffs. Struggled to end the season. Other teams definitely see this and this is the moment where King decides to sell.

[NyCeEvO]

Then why hasn't he been fired?

Because ownership doesn't know what they're doing.

Hiring Avery was a bad idea. Hiring King was a bad idea. These are things that most on the board have said at the time that Avery and KIng were hired and when Wallace was traded for and re-signed. Heck, I remember almost punching a wall at my in-laws and being super-pissed the entire day when I heard Wallace was given that contract.

It's clear that they along with King are stubborn and would rather compound their mistakes by doing whatever they can to prove that their decision was good (e.g. giving Wallace a 4yr/$40mil deal when everyone was expecting a maximum of $8mil/yr over 2-3 years) than admitting their shortcomings and minimizing the negative impact.

As far as I'm concerned, they all can go if they're going to continue this nonsense. It doesn't matter if you want to spend tons of cash if you just waste most of it.

Or could it be he was doing exactly what the ownership wanted?

Which makes more sense...a basketball dumb owner not knowing how to properly evaluate a basketball dumb GM or a smart, savvy owner keeping a GM whose team is stuck in mediocrity with no future.

Remember it was the owner who said in 2010 that he'd win a championship in 5 years and every year he thought he was getting closer even though it was quite evident to the fans that they weren't that close.

Being in this situation is obviously not what ownership wants. They want to be winning but they don't know how to do it. Prokhorov is a business man and he's still losing money on the team because they're spending so much in luxury tax.

If you think they're just happy to turn out net losses every year just for the sake of it, I don't know what to tell you. King has been able to use every excuse in the book to explain why the team hasn't done well but since ownership has no idea what the hell to do, they just stick with what's familiar than get something new.

It's like an abusive relationship. The owners see the results of being with King and it is clearly against what they desire. But they're always scared of parting ways and keep believing the lies that their significant other won't screw up yet again next time or that it was their own fault for what happeend, not the SO's fault.

[NyCeEvO]

Billy King selling low again

There isn't any scenario where we can sell high. Besides, if teams are approaching us then his value remains intact. If Mason can field us another 1st round pick then deal him. Upshaw, McCullough, Looney, Wood all have much high ceilings.

There isn't a scenario where we can sell high now, but this is from the article
"This task certainly would have been simpler, had the Nets sold high on Mason Plumlee and traded him when the calls were flooding in early the previous season ... when the going rate for centers was so favorable.

It's unavoidably tantalizing to think about what the Nets might have gotten for Plumlee, had they actively shopped him before he fell out of favor -- bearing in mind the two future first-round picks Denver extracted from Cleveland for Timofey Mozgov."

http://espn.go.com/blog/marc-stein/post ... n-priority

The Kings were so interested in Plumlee that they were willing to take the worst contract in the league to get him. The interest was much higher after he was named first team all rookie, played on team USA, he had a good stretch in December-January. At this moment his value is low - he couldn't get on the court in the playoffs. Struggled to end the season. Other teams definitely see this and this is the moment where King decides to sell.

Selling high and buying low sounds great in theory but it's rare that it actually works out unless you're given an inside tip.

At the time Mason was playing well, everyone said "Trade Brook and build around Mason". We had posters literally saying that it would be idiotic to trade Plumlee who was beasting. Now that the tables have turned we look back and say "Oh wait, we should've traded Plumlee."

We can't have it both ways. When things are going good, most teams stick with it unless they're 100% positive it's fools gold. Unfortunately, it's never that clear.

[kerry kittles]

There isn't any scenario where we can sell high. Besides, if teams are approaching us then his value remains intact. If Mason can field us another 1st round pick then deal him. Upshaw, McCullough, Looney, Wood all have much high ceilings.

There isn't a scenario where we can sell high now, but this is from the article
"This task certainly would have been simpler, had the Nets sold high on Mason Plumlee and traded him when the calls were flooding in early the previous season ... when the going rate for centers was so favorable.

It's unavoidably tantalizing to think about what the Nets might have gotten for Plumlee, had they actively shopped him before he fell out of favor -- bearing in mind the two future first-round picks Denver extracted from Cleveland for Timofey Mozgov."

http://espn.go.com/blog/marc-stein/post ... n-priority

The Kings were so interested in Plumlee that they were willing to take the worst contract in the league to get him. The interest was much higher after he was named first team all rookie, played on team USA, he had a good stretch in December-January. At this moment his value is low - he couldn't get on the court in the playoffs. Struggled to end the season. Other teams definitely see this and this is the moment where King decides to sell.

Selling high and buying low sounds great in theory but it's rare that it actually works out unless you're given an inside tip.

At the time Mason was playing well, everyone said "Trade Brook and build around Mason". We had posters literally saying that it would be idiotic to trade Plumlee who was beasting. Now that the tables have turned we look back and say "Oh wait, we should've traded Plumlee."

We can't have it both ways. When things are going good, most teams stick with it unless they're 100% positive it's fools gold. Unfortunately, it's never that clear.

All true, I mean admittedly I was against trading Plumlee as I didn't see the return would be to justify it for a guy on a bargain contract. I have since soured on him, but he showed improvement in the December-January bridge which gave me hope. I was for moving Brook for assets: Charlotte - Zeller, OKC - McGary (if available) and Lamb.

I think likening King to a RealGM poster is pretty accurate. I mean look at how this board overall flips stances on guys from a game to game basis or over larger periods of times. King is the same way - Plumlee was untradeable in his eyes during the season even the Kings deal (which I liked) wasn't enough for him - to get rid of the worst contract in the league. Now it seems like he's the most likely to be gone. Brook was the most likely to be traded before the deadline - we had a deal to move him, but Presti balked. Now the #1 priority this offseason is keeping him.

You compare that a good GM like Buford. Buford seems to have a master plan - each move calculated, a piece to a larger puzzle. Casted emotion to the side and traded Pop's favorite player, a guy who showed great growth because he liked what he saw in Kawhi and how hewould fit. It seems with King that he has no plan, no vision how he wants to the roster to look. He's the personification of that poster whose demanding a player gets traded after a poor games, but loves him when he rebounds.

[Universe]

Because ownership doesn't know what they're doing.

Hiring Avery was a bad idea. Hiring King was a bad idea. These are things that most on the board have said at the time that Avery and KIng were hired and when Wallace was traded for and re-signed. Heck, I remember almost punching a wall at my in-laws and being super-pissed the entire day when I heard Wallace was given that contract.

It's clear that they along with King are stubborn and would rather compound their mistakes by doing whatever they can to prove that their decision was good (e.g. giving Wallace a 4yr/$40mil deal when everyone was expecting a maximum of $8mil/yr over 2-3 years) than admitting their shortcomings and minimizing the negative impact.

As far as I'm concerned, they all can go if they're going to continue this nonsense. It doesn't matter if you want to spend tons of cash if you just waste most of it.

Or could it be he was doing exactly what the ownership wanted?

Which makes more sense...a basketball dumb owner not knowing how to properly evaluate a basketball dumb GM or a smart, savvy owner keeping a GM whose team is stuck in mediocrity with no future.

Remember it was the owner who said in 2010 that he'd win a championship in 5 years and every year he thought he was getting closer even though it was quite evident to the fans that they weren't that close.

Being in this situation is obviously not what ownership wants. They want to be winning but they don't know how to do it. Prokhorov is a business man and he's still losing money on the team because they're spending so much in luxury tax.

If you think they're just happy to turn out net losses every year just for the sake of it, I don't know what to tell you. King has been able to use every excuse in the book to explain why the team hasn't done well but since ownership has no idea what the hell to do, they just stick with what's familiar than get something new.

It's like an abusive relationship. The owners see the results of being with King and it is clearly against what they desire. But they're always scared of parting ways and keep believing the lies that their significant other won't screw up yet again next time or that it was their own fault for what happeend, not the SO's fault.

They aren't scared of parting ways with King because he's done the job they asked. That's why he got the job in the first place and that's the reason he still hasn't been fired despite turnovers on the court and in the front office.

Prokhorov is a business man and that's the route he decided to take. It's why we have Deron Williams. It's why we had the terrible Celtics trade. Heck, you can tell by attendance that the move for KG and PP were merely made to bring more people to the arena after a disappointing opener.

Stars do run the league but our owner thought throwing a bunch of brand name players would boost the Brooklyn Nets brand and it did in way. Nets are talked about more and we even got a Christmas game out of it. The problem? None of those brand name players are the top five in the league like I stated above. We are just like 90% of the league, with very little hope to win a championship. The difference is we have no draft picks and our franchise player has given up, which everyone uses in every argument.

[Paradise]

He's the personification of that poster whose demanding a player gets traded after a poor games, but loves him when he rebounds.

We are receiving offers. So, it's not like we are demanding Plumlee to be dealt at all costs. You would be a fool at this point not to consider moving him especially when we lack upside in talent and the fact Plumlee's stats as a backup indicates he can't flourish in a bench role.

I think King has an idea of what he wants to do but has no idea how to properly construct a team and negotiate trades.

[CalamityX12]

Send Plumlee to

Phx for Len
Port for Lopez
GS for Barnes LOL
Orl for someone
CHA for Lance?????
NYK for .... their hottest cheerleader?

[Kaiser30]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/603423527069319168[/tweet]

Billy King selling low again

There isn't any scenario where we can sell high. Besides, if teams are approaching us then his value remains intact. If Mason can field us another 1st round pick then deal him. Upshaw, McCullough, Looney, Wood all have much high ceilings.

This plus they would be on bargain rookie contracts two years longer while the cap skyrockets to around 100 M.

I would seriously consider moving him if there is a nice offer out there.

The situation is different now than it was a year ago. Brook seemed expandable due to Mason's contributions. But Brook has reestablished himself and the FO seems now committed to keep him around.
Both have shown multiple times that they can't play together. As a consequence, Mason won't see more than around 15 minutes behind Brook. If you can instead get a player who can share the court with Brook (either through trade or via pick) and therefore have a higher impact, the Nets should take that offer.

[kerry kittles]

He's the personification of that poster whose demanding a player gets traded after a poor games, but loves him when he rebounds.

We are receiving offers. So, it's not like we are demanding Plumlee to be dealt at all costs. You would be a fool at this point not to consider moving him especially when we lack upside in talent and the fact Plumlee's stats as a backup indicates he can't flourish in a bench role.

I think King has an idea of what he wants to do but has no idea how to properly construct a team and negotiate trades.

I'm not against moving Plumlee. Him and Brook never fit well together and he's struggled off the bench as you mention. Personally, I think we would've been better off moving one of them during the season and would've received better value. The only downside now to moving Plumlee is if Brook walks we have a huge void at center.

[SIC]

Send Plumlee to

Phx for Len
Port for Lopez
GS for Barnes LOL
Orl for someone
CHA for Lance?????
NYK for .... their hottest cheerleader?

I dont want players back. Just send us a pick, this year or next.

[kerry kittles]

Send Plumlee to

Phx for Len
Port for Lopez
GS for Barnes LOL
Orl for someone
CHA for Lance?????
NYK for .... their hottest cheerleader?

Len is better than Plumlee. Barnes yes is LOL - they're not breaking up that starting 5 for Plum. Don't want any part of Lance. I think the options would be to use him to help move one of our 'unmovable' contracts or for a pick.

[Paradise]

He's the personification of that poster whose demanding a player gets traded after a poor games, but loves him when he rebounds.

We are receiving offers. So, it's not like we are demanding Plumlee to be dealt at all costs. You would be a fool at this point not to consider moving him especially when we lack upside in talent and the fact Plumlee's stats as a backup indicates he can't flourish in a bench role.

I think King has an idea of what he wants to do but has no idea how to properly construct a team and negotiate trades.

I'm not against moving Plumlee. Him and Brook never fit well together and he's struggled off the bench as you mention. Personally, I think we would've been better off moving one of them during the season and would've received better value. The only downside now to moving Plumlee is if Brook walks we have a huge void at center.

Moving him last season in hindsight would've been smart but he showed signs of real promise then. I think he was averaging 15/10 during that Kings trade offer. Moving him next season probably is a toss up now because he could very well lower his value in a bigger role.

We saw how awful he looked in a bench role during Brook's emergence which carried into the playoffs. Most teams aren't probably aware of that... yet.

[kerry kittles]

I dont know. The guy might be a great guy and even I have said some nice things about Marks, but for a guy that was here for 20 years, this team hasnt been really that good.

I wonder what his part in the Outlaw, Farmar and Petro signings. We know that he was the guy that negotiated the Boston Trade.

For a guy that is suppose to be the cap guru of the Nets, our salary cap has been terrible for the past two years.

Just saying.

Where does it say he negotiated the Celtics deal? All I heard is he is the one that got the ball rolling, had the original conversation.

The Nets are over the cap because of King's dumbass moves - Joe Johnson takes up a huge portion of our cap, was Marks the guy who executed that trade? King likely covered his ass for moronic Gerald Wallace deal by offering him a bloated contract as he couldn't see the guy he gave up the #6 pick for walk. That contract was a big part of what we gave up in the Celtics deal and some of the contracts we received in return. KG...>Thad.

Marks has been a finalist for GM jobs - that means that he's pretty well regarded around the league. Billy King would never be a finalist for another GM job as long as he lives.

Who the hell knows who did what. All we know is MARKS initiated the talks.

Hasnt Billy publicly said that He Lets His Staff do their thing whether it is scouting or, in this situation, Cap Specialist and Initiator of BOS deal?

So you want to believe that King just stepped in and TOOK OVER the talks. King had the final say to the proposed deal, but WE all know that it was Ownership that pushed the BOS trade. So we dont know where and when BKing stepped in.

We know that BKing should take some responsibility for where the Nets are now, but Come On.

I would think that Marks, AS CAP GURU, set the parameters and presented it to King. Then what MOST LIKELY happened King Presented to the OWNERSHIP.

Then you give another example where the CAP GURU on a team should have some say when you are adding a $20+ million contract like JJ's.

You clearly have had more of a connection to Marks and you are defending your freebees. Every Nets fan including myself thought the Killa B's were cool. The reality is someone has to take the blame for where the Nets are now. Clearly BKing isnt the one getting the AXE. There must be something to that. Not saying it is right but there clearly is something WE DONT KNOW.

Is Marks getting blamed for the BOS fiasco? Looks like it. I dont care what they are saying to the MEDIA, Cost Cutting. By not re-upping Marks COULD be just a nice way of avoiding saying - You did a terrible job and YOU ARE FIRED.

The timeline/manifestation seems to support this:

Boston goes into rebuild move: Doc Rivers bolts to Los Angeles and the Celtics get a pick in return. There are conversations of KG going with Doc. Here's link supporting this: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--celti ... 09995.html

At this point under the belief that Doc and KG are going to Boston and Boston is going into rebuild mode Marks contacts the Celtics assistant GM inquiring about Pierce. The original deal is Humphries + a 1st for Pierce. This is supported by some other site i won't name.

Ainge's plan is getting 3 1sts for expirings for Doc, KG and Paul, two from LAC and one from us. The NBA blocks KG to LA and then this whole thing boils over and explodes into this huge blockboster. I don't think Marks executed this whole blockbuster himself - I think it's a reach that assistant GMs are orchestrating deals of this magnitude. The trade forms as one pick for KG (mirroring what LA was paying), a 1st for Paul (as originally discussed), and a 1st to take Wallace's contract (has been noted elsewhere we needed to give a 1st to move him). I understand that trade, it makes sense. My biggest issue was the overpay of including the pick swap - think the trade as broken out there makes sense and is agreeable by both parties.

So we know Marks initiated a conversation regarding Pierce for Humph + a 1st. Don't know that he was the mastermind behind this whole blockbuster. He had the original conversation, but it was very different from the end result.

I disagree with Marks being the fall guy; that may be the reason his contract wasn't renewed and he may be the fall guy in ownership's eyes, but in my eyes I can't see how Marks is more to blame for this mess than King.

He also may not be the fall guy as the Nets have a 2nd assistant GM and he's King guy (which worries me as I don't trust King's judgment at all). So they may have elected they only need one assistant GM - not many teams have two and chosen King's guy. Plus there's financial savings.

I just hate that King isn't held accountable. I'd love for Prok to come to the Dolan realization where he should keep his hands off, and trust in someone more respected than King.

[CalamityX12]

Send Plumlee to

Phx for Len
Port for Lopez
GS for Barnes LOL
Orl for someone
CHA for Lance?????
NYK for .... their hottest cheerleader?

Len is better than Plumlee. Barnes yes is LOL - they're not breaking up that starting 5 for Plum. Don't want any part of Lance. I think the options would be to use him to help move one of our 'unmovable' contracts or for a pick.

Yea I know, it was more for show since there's very little I can say til the actual draft or something news worthy breaks out...

I still like to land Robin Lopez though

[NyCeEvO]

There isn't a scenario where we can sell high now, but this is from the article
"This task certainly would have been simpler, had the Nets sold high on Mason Plumlee and traded him when the calls were flooding in early the previous season ... when the going rate for centers was so favorable.

It's unavoidably tantalizing to think about what the Nets might have gotten for Plumlee, had they actively shopped him before he fell out of favor -- bearing in mind the two future first-round picks Denver extracted from Cleveland for Timofey Mozgov."

http://espn.go.com/blog/marc-stein/post ... n-priority

The Kings were so interested in Plumlee that they were willing to take the worst contract in the league to get him. The interest was much higher after he was named first team all rookie, played on team USA, he had a good stretch in December-January. At this moment his value is low - he couldn't get on the court in the playoffs. Struggled to end the season. Other teams definitely see this and this is the moment where King decides to sell.

Selling high and buying low sounds great in theory but it's rare that it actually works out unless you're given an inside tip.

At the time Mason was playing well, everyone said "Trade Brook and build around Mason". We had posters literally saying that it would be idiotic to trade Plumlee who was beasting. Now that the tables have turned we look back and say "Oh wait, we should've traded Plumlee."

We can't have it both ways. When things are going good, most teams stick with it unless they're 100% positive it's fools gold. Unfortunately, it's never that clear.

All true, I mean admittedly I was against trading Plumlee as I didn't see the return would be to justify it for a guy on a bargain contract. I have since soured on him, but he showed improvement in the December-January bridge which gave me hope. I was for moving Brook for assets: Charlotte - Zeller, OKC - McGary (if available) and Lamb.

I think likening King to a RealGM poster is pretty accurate. I mean look at how this board overall flips stances on guys from a game to game basis or over larger periods of times. King is the same way - Plumlee was untradeable in his eyes during the season even the Kings deal (which I liked) wasn't enough for him - to get rid of the worst contract in the league. Now it seems like he's the most likely to be gone. Brook was the most likely to be traded before the deadline - we had a deal to move him, but Presti balked. Now the #1 priority this offseason is keeping him.

You compare that a good GM like Buford. Buford seems to have a master plan - each move calculated, a piece to a larger puzzle. Casted emotion to the side and traded Pop's favorite player, a guy who showed great growth because he liked what he saw in Kawhi and how hewould fit. It seems with King that he has no plan, no vision how he wants to the roster to look. He's the personification of that poster whose demanding a player gets traded after a poor games, but loves him when he rebounds.

The last two seasons have been:
1) we suck in the beginning
2) get hit with injury bug
3) sometime between January and the ASG, we turn it around after looking completely dead in the water most of the season (in the Eastern Conference mind you)
4) we go on these little feel good runs at the end of the season that King is always able to say "If we weren't injured we would've easily made the playoffs"
5) We get demolished in the playoffs but King conveniently forgets that and goes back to how the regular season ended and that we things to build off of.

It pisses me off that it's so easy for them to look at the stretch we had to catch up in the playoff race but in the 3-4 games that truly mattered, these guys didn't show up INCLUDING Thad and Brook whom Billy King wants to re-sign.

King is so excited to give max contracts to two guys who helped us go 17-13 post-ASG in the East.

After all of this spending, we still haven't had a 50-win season but he still wants to act like there's something to smile about in Nets land.

[NyCeEvO]

Or could it be he was doing exactly what the ownership wanted?

Which makes more sense...a basketball dumb owner not knowing how to properly evaluate a basketball dumb GM or a smart, savvy owner keeping a GM whose team is stuck in mediocrity with no future.

Remember it was the owner who said in 2010 that he'd win a championship in 5 years and every year he thought he was getting closer even though it was quite evident to the fans that they weren't that close.

Being in this situation is obviously not what ownership wants. They want to be winning but they don't know how to do it. Prokhorov is a business man and he's still losing money on the team because they're spending so much in luxury tax.

If you think they're just happy to turn out net losses every year just for the sake of it, I don't know what to tell you. King has been able to use every excuse in the book to explain why the team hasn't done well but since ownership has no idea what the hell to do, they just stick with what's familiar than get something new.

It's like an abusive relationship. The owners see the results of being with King and it is clearly against what they desire. But they're always scared of parting ways and keep believing the lies that their significant other won't screw up yet again next time or that it was their own fault for what happeend, not the SO's fault.

They aren't scared of parting ways with King because he's done the job they asked. That's why he got the job in the first place and that's the reason he still hasn't been fired despite turnovers on the court and in the front office.

Prokhorov is a business man and that's the route he decided to take. It's why we have Deron Williams. It's why we had the terrible Celtics trade. Heck, you can tell by attendance that the move for KG and PP were merely made to bring more people to the arena after a disappointing opener.

Stars do run the league but our owner thought throwing a bunch of brand name players would boost the Brooklyn Nets brand and it did in way. Nets are talked about more and we even got a Christmas game out of it. The problem? None of those brand name players are the top five in the league like I stated above. We are just like 90% of the league, with very little hope to win a championship. The difference is we have no draft picks and our franchise player has given up, which everyone uses in every argument.

Trading for said stars didn't just happen magically.

Most of the deals King did to bring in these players were overpays. I highly doubt that Billy King was on such a tight schedule that he needed to execute the trade within a 2-day time period or else he'd get fired. You're acting as if King told ownership, "These are all of our assets going forward. I'll close my eyes, choose whatever you want to give up, and if they ask for more tell me what to include and I'll do it."

Can you provide concrete statements that prove King was forced to do these trades and he was forced to give up a specific amount for each one? I've never seen anything like that other than "Sources say...."

The burden of proof is on the doubters who just want to absolve King of everything and just say "Ownership made him do it" as if he did it against his will. If Billy was truly concerned about giving up so much, I don't think it's that hard for a GM to open his mouth and say "He...if we can keep this asset, we can probably use it to get another great player down the line and make our team even more formidable."

So which one is it? Billy King the mute or Billy King the "Throw money at the wall and hope it sticks" fool? Either way, it's a lose-lose for him.

[Shook Jones]

Joe Johnson and Plumlee to Minny for Pek,Martin and Bennett.

Reunite Plumlee with his mentor KG. Minny clears capspace when JJ expires.

Nets get a great backup for Lopez and a scorer in Martin. Bennett is still a project but maybe Hollins can guide him?

[Universe]

Send Plumlee to

Phx for Len
Port for Lopez
GS for Barnes LOL
Orl for someone
CHA for Lance?????
NYK for .... their hottest cheerleader?

Len is better than Plumlee. Barnes yes is LOL - they're not breaking up that starting 5 for Plum. Don't want any part of Lance. I think the options would be to use him to help move one of our 'unmovable' contracts or for a pick.

Yea I know, it was more for show since there's very little I can say til the actual draft or something news worthy breaks out...

I still like to land Robin Lopez though

I would love to pair him up with his brother. Wouldn't work against all teams, but would be a good, tall offensive and defensive duo. Price might be too high so would have to bribe with Russian Disneyland tickets.

[NyCeEvO]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kpelton/status/603615123304017920[/tweet]
Put Delon Wright with the right coach and system and this guy will be like the next Chauncey Billups.