The problem with the Nets Picks

[celticsclay]

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

They had Isaiah Thomas making personnel decisions.

I am well aware, but that was their worst record the whole time Isiah managed the team. The year before and after they won about 33 games. That is kind of my point. Even after making terrible trade after terrible trade (francis, hardaway, Marbury, curry) there is still a certain level of talent that usually prevents a team with a massive payroll from being as bad as a bobcats team paying 30-45 million less to their players.

[Boris Badenov]

Hey all,

Apologies if this has been said in another thread, but I haven't seen much discussion of two major problems with the Nets Picks.  Everyone keeps pointing out that the Nets picks will be good in later years cause their players will be old and they will suck. It is true they are old BUT:

1) They are now a major market team spending as much money as anyone. Unless they have an ownership change, when these players retire (Garnett Pierce Johnson) they will just trade them as expiring deals for teams looking at salary cap relief. Look at the biggest market teams throwing money around for the past decade: Dallas, New York and LA  How many top 5 or even top 10 picks have they had? I think the number is zero but could be wrong

2) Given that the Nets don't own their picks, they have even more incentive to field an average to solid team in those years because they will at least sell some tickets and maybe get some playoff money. Are they really going to allow themselves to be a terrible team, have terrible attendance and get no playoff revenue when the one good thing that could happen from that is going to another team?

These are good observations, but I think you are missing some very important facts:

1. The Nets' current spending binge is purely a function of their current ownership rather than their status as a "major market team." As recently as 2010 they had the #3 pick in the draft. Since 1987 they've had two #1 picks, 5 top 5 picks and 11 top 10 picks. I don't see why moving from New Jersey to Brooklyn would change this, they're still the Nets and their fan base consists of basically the same people.

2. So, if the current ownership bails who's to say that the spending won't collapse? In 2010 Prokhorov guaranteed a ring within 5 years - well, it's 2013 and so far they have nothing. Is is impossible that he just says "I'm out" in 2015 or 2016?

3. I don't like your Lakers analogy - they are just a different animal with all the advantages they have. And, Dallas' spending is also totally owner-specific rather than market-specific - it's Cuban, not Dallas, that matters. So, see point (2) above.

4. The Knicks are a decent analogy. But there I think your argument fails. Since 2001-2002, a period of 12 years, the Knicks have been in the lottery 8 times. They have traded their best picks, but have in those 8 years actually had 6 top 10 picks including #2 (traded to Chicago).

So in short, big-market teams have lottery picks all the time and are frequently bad. Billionaire owners help teams to contend but can leave.

Those picks might end up being good or bad, no one knows. But you don't have a convincing case that they will certainly be bad.

I think this point is getting closer to the heart of the argument. I think we could make a reasonable argument that right now with their owner, the Nets are closer to the Lakers than anybody else. My argument is only  if they keep the same ownership group, and odds are more likely they will have same owner than not over the next 4 years.

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

This is probably very important. One thing to consider is that while Prokhorov is a billionaire the Nets stand to be paying just an unbelievable amount of luxury tax by 2015. They could be paying not only $100 million in salary but $50-60 million in tax (rough estimate).

I'm not sure how rich someone needs to be for that to not matter - especially if the team is winning 45 games and getting bounced in the first round year after year. So, maybe he quits.

Or, maybe a couple of guys get hurt.

We'll see. I do think you're right in general that these look to be pretty bad picks, at least out to 2016. But there is a chance that they could be good, too.

[Smokeeye123]

I have a hard time seeing the Nets being competitive in 2018...Deron Williams and joe johnson will be over the hill and pierce and KG will be gone...They should get at least a late lottery pick that year.

[LooseCannon]

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

They had Isaiah Thomas making personnel decisions.

The specific trade was:

October 4, 2005: Traded Jermaine Jackson, Mike Sweetney, Tim Thomas, a 2006 1st round draft pick (LaMarcus Aldridge), a 2007 1st round draft pick (Joakim Noah), a 2007 2nd round draft pick (Kyrylo Fesenko) and a 2009 2nd round draft pick (Jon Brockman) to the Chicago Bulls for Eddy Curry, Antonio Davis and a 2007 1st round draft pick (Wilson Chandler).

[Moranis]

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

They had Isaiah Thomas making personnel decisions.

Larry Brown coached that 23 win team though and there was plenty of talent on it.  David Lee, Jamal Crawford, Trevor Ariza, Nate Robinson, Stephon Marbury, Matt Barnes, Channing Frye, Eddy Curry, Quentin Richardson, Jalen Rose, Maurice Taylor, Antonio Davis, heck even Penny Hardaway.

[celticsclay]

Hey all,

Apologies if this has been said in another thread, but I haven't seen much discussion of two major problems with the Nets Picks.  Everyone keeps pointing out that the Nets picks will be good in later years cause their players will be old and they will suck. It is true they are old BUT:

1) They are now a major market team spending as much money as anyone. Unless they have an ownership change, when these players retire (Garnett Pierce Johnson) they will just trade them as expiring deals for teams looking at salary cap relief. Look at the biggest market teams throwing money around for the past decade: Dallas, New York and LA  How many top 5 or even top 10 picks have they had? I think the number is zero but could be wrong

2) Given that the Nets don't own their picks, they have even more incentive to field an average to solid team in those years because they will at least sell some tickets and maybe get some playoff money. Are they really going to allow themselves to be a terrible team, have terrible attendance and get no playoff revenue when the one good thing that could happen from that is going to another team?

These are good observations, but I think you are missing some very important facts:

1. The Nets' current spending binge is purely a function of their current ownership rather than their status as a "major market team." As recently as 2010 they had the #3 pick in the draft. Since 1987 they've had two #1 picks, 5 top 5 picks and 11 top 10 picks. I don't see why moving from New Jersey to Brooklyn would change this, they're still the Nets and their fan base consists of basically the same people.

2. So, if the current ownership bails who's to say that the spending won't collapse? In 2010 Prokhorov guaranteed a ring within 5 years - well, it's 2013 and so far they have nothing. Is is impossible that he just says "I'm out" in 2015 or 2016?

3. I don't like your Lakers analogy - they are just a different animal with all the advantages they have. And, Dallas' spending is also totally owner-specific rather than market-specific - it's Cuban, not Dallas, that matters. So, see point (2) above.

4. The Knicks are a decent analogy. But there I think your argument fails. Since 2001-2002, a period of 12 years, the Knicks have been in the lottery 8 times. They have traded their best picks, but have in those 8 years actually had 6 top 10 picks including #2 (traded to Chicago).

So in short, big-market teams have lottery picks all the time and are frequently bad. Billionaire owners help teams to contend but can leave.

Those picks might end up being good or bad, no one knows. But you don't have a convincing case that they will certainly be bad.

I think this point is getting closer to the heart of the argument. I think we could make a reasonable argument that right now with their owner, the Nets are closer to the Lakers than anybody else. My argument is only  if they keep the same ownership group, and odds are more likely they will have same owner than not over the next 4 years.

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

This is probably very important. One thing to consider is that while Prokhorov is a billionaire the Nets stand to be paying just an unbelievable amount of luxury tax by 2015. They could be paying not only $100 million in salary but $50-60 million in tax (rough estimate).

I'm not sure how rich someone needs to be for that to not matter - especially if the team is winning 45 games and getting bounced in the first round year after year. So, maybe he quits.

Or, maybe a couple of guys get hurt.

We'll see. I do think you're right in general that these look to be pretty bad picks, at least out to 2016. But there is a chance that they could be good, too.

Thanks... one of the better discussions I have had on here

[Boris Badenov]

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

They had Isaiah Thomas making personnel decisions.

I am well aware, but that was their worst record the whole time Isiah managed the team. The year before and after they won about 33 games. That is kind of my point. Even after making terrible trade after terrible trade (francis, hardaway, Marbury, curry) there is still a certain level of talent that usually prevents a team with a massive payroll from being as bad as a bobcats team paying 30-45 million less to their players.

I think you're right in general. But it's not like having these picks be top-5 is our whole strategy. Our own picks in 2014 and 2015 stand to be pretty high themselves.

But, if you are Danny trying to swing a Harden-type deal moving Green, Bradley and two picks for an All-Star (as one example), if those picks are those of a 35-40 win team they are valuable assets that could make the deal happen. And we only need one bad year from the Nets for one of those picks to become that valuable.

[Boris Badenov]

Hey all,

Apologies if this has been said in another thread, but I haven't seen much discussion of two major problems with the Nets Picks.  Everyone keeps pointing out that the Nets picks will be good in later years cause their players will be old and they will suck. It is true they are old BUT:

1) They are now a major market team spending as much money as anyone. Unless they have an ownership change, when these players retire (Garnett Pierce Johnson) they will just trade them as expiring deals for teams looking at salary cap relief. Look at the biggest market teams throwing money around for the past decade: Dallas, New York and LA  How many top 5 or even top 10 picks have they had? I think the number is zero but could be wrong

2) Given that the Nets don't own their picks, they have even more incentive to field an average to solid team in those years because they will at least sell some tickets and maybe get some playoff money. Are they really going to allow themselves to be a terrible team, have terrible attendance and get no playoff revenue when the one good thing that could happen from that is going to another team?

These are good observations, but I think you are missing some very important facts:

1. The Nets' current spending binge is purely a function of their current ownership rather than their status as a "major market team." As recently as 2010 they had the #3 pick in the draft. Since 1987 they've had two #1 picks, 5 top 5 picks and 11 top 10 picks. I don't see why moving from New Jersey to Brooklyn would change this, they're still the Nets and their fan base consists of basically the same people.

2. So, if the current ownership bails who's to say that the spending won't collapse? In 2010 Prokhorov guaranteed a ring within 5 years - well, it's 2013 and so far they have nothing. Is is impossible that he just says "I'm out" in 2015 or 2016?

3. I don't like your Lakers analogy - they are just a different animal with all the advantages they have. And, Dallas' spending is also totally owner-specific rather than market-specific - it's Cuban, not Dallas, that matters. So, see point (2) above.

4. The Knicks are a decent analogy. But there I think your argument fails. Since 2001-2002, a period of 12 years, the Knicks have been in the lottery 8 times. They have traded their best picks, but have in those 8 years actually had 6 top 10 picks including #2 (traded to Chicago).

So in short, big-market teams have lottery picks all the time and are frequently bad. Billionaire owners help teams to contend but can leave.

Those picks might end up being good or bad, no one knows. But you don't have a convincing case that they will certainly be bad.

I think this point is getting closer to the heart of the argument. I think we could make a reasonable argument that right now with their owner, the Nets are closer to the Lakers than anybody else. My argument is only  if they keep the same ownership group, and odds are more likely they will have same owner than not over the next 4 years.

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

This is probably very important. One thing to consider is that while Prokhorov is a billionaire the Nets stand to be paying just an unbelievable amount of luxury tax by 2015. They could be paying not only $100 million in salary but $50-60 million in tax (rough estimate).

I'm not sure how rich someone needs to be for that to not matter - especially if the team is winning 45 games and getting bounced in the first round year after year. So, maybe he quits.

Or, maybe a couple of guys get hurt.

We'll see. I do think you're right in general that these look to be pretty bad picks, at least out to 2016. But there is a chance that they could be good, too.

Thanks... one of the better discussions I have had on here

Same here. TP.

[LooseCannon]

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

They had Isaiah Thomas making personnel decisions.

I am well aware, but that was their worst record the whole time Isiah managed the team. The year before and after they won about 33 games. That is kind of my point. Even after making terrible trade after terrible trade (francis, hardaway, Marbury, curry) there is still a certain level of talent that usually prevents a team with a massive payroll from being as bad as a bobcats team paying 30-45 million less to their players.

The Knicks were in the lottery 2005-2010:
2005 - 8th - Channing Frye (Bynum, Granger, David Lee available)
2006 - 2nd - Lamarcus Aldridge (pick owned by Chicago)
2007 - 9th - Joakim Noah (pick owned by Chicago)
2008 - 6th - Danilo Gallinari (Eric Gordon, Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert, Ryan Anderson, Serge Ibaka available)
2009 - 8th - Jordan Hill (Jrue Holiday, Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, Taj Gibson, many others available)
2010 - 9th - Gordon Hayward (owned by Utah via Phoenix) (Paul George also available)

In that time frame, they also acquired first round picks that were used on David Lee, Mardy Collins, Renaldo Balkman, and Wilson Chandler

The two deals where the Knicks traded away firsts were:

January 5, 2004: Traded Howard Eisley, Maciej Lampe, Antonio McDyess, Charlie Ward, Milos Vujanic, a 2004 1st round draft pick (Kirk Snyder) and a 2010 1st round draft pick (Gordon Hayward) to the Phoenix Suns for Anfernee Hardaway, Stephon Marbury and Cezary Trybanski.

October 4, 2005: Traded Jermaine Jackson, Mike Sweetney, Tim Thomas, a 2006 1st round draft pick (LaMarcus Aldridge), a 2007 1st round draft pick (Joakim Noah), a 2007 2nd round draft pick (Kyrylo Fesenko) and a 2009 2nd round draft pick (Jon Brockman) to the Chicago Bulls for Eddy Curry, Antonio Davis and a 2007 1st round draft pick (Wilson Chandler).

[celticsclay]

It is good to know that the Knicks had a top 2 pick. I will have to go back to look at their roster to see how that happened. It may be our best chance

They had Isaiah Thomas making personnel decisions.

I am well aware, but that was their worst record the whole time Isiah managed the team. The year before and after they won about 33 games. That is kind of my point. Even after making terrible trade after terrible trade (francis, hardaway, Marbury, curry) there is still a certain level of talent that usually prevents a team with a massive payroll from being as bad as a bobcats team paying 30-45 million less to their players.

The Knicks were in the lottery 2005-2010:
2005 - 8th - Channing Frye (Bynum, Granger, David Lee available)
2006 - 2nd - Lamarcus Aldridge (pick owned by Chicago)
2007 - 9th - Joakim Noah (pick owned by Chicago)
2008 - 6th - Danilo Gallinari (Eric Gordon, Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert, Ryan Anderson, Serge Ibaka available)
2009 - 8th - Jordan Hill (Jrue Holiday, Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, Taj Gibson, many others available)
2010 - 9th - Gordon Hayward (owned by Utah via Phoenix) (Paul George also available)

In that time frame, they also acquired first round picks that were used on David Lee, Mardy Collins, Renaldo Balkman, and Wilson Chandler

The two deals where the Knicks traded away firsts were:

January 5, 2004: Traded Howard Eisley, Maciej Lampe, Antonio McDyess, Charlie Ward, Milos Vujanic, a 2004 1st round draft pick (Kirk Snyder) and a 2010 1st round draft pick (Gordon Hayward) to the Phoenix Suns for Anfernee Hardaway, Stephon Marbury and Cezary Trybanski.

October 4, 2005: Traded Jermaine Jackson, Mike Sweetney, Tim Thomas, a 2006 1st round draft pick (LaMarcus Aldridge), a 2007 1st round draft pick (Joakim Noah), a 2007 2nd round draft pick (Kyrylo Fesenko) and a 2009 2nd round draft pick (Jon Brockman) to the Chicago Bulls for Eddy Curry, Antonio Davis and a 2007 1st round draft pick (Wilson Chandler).

I think the convo between Boris and I kind of summed up why it is unlikely for a really high spending team to get a top 5 pick. Yes it did happen once with the number 2 pick (out of about 30 years between the Mavs, Lakers and Knicks). The other picks you are mentioning don't particularly excite me. I mean if we end up with a Danny Galinari, Fry or Hayward type player in 2018 is that really exciting? We can't play the best case scenario example because there has been one time in the last ten years the Celtics picked the best player available (using hindsight) and that was Rondo. 

[LooseCannon]

Even if you don't assume the best-case scenario, I'm pretty sure you can assume that Danny Ainge would do better than Isiah Thomas in cumulative value for a set of several draft picks.

There is a difference in value between a couple of picks that are almost certainly going to be in the 20s and a couple of picks that are probably going to be in the 20-25 range, with at least a 10% chance that at least one of them will be a top ten pick.  In the former case, you can get lucky one way: by finding a hidden late-round gem.  In the later case, you can also get lucky by having an unexpected lottery pick fall into your lap.  Sometimes, you get lucky because you give your self the best chance of getting lucky.

We live in a probabilistic world.  It's a mistake to treat low-probability best-case (or worst-case) scenarios as if they have a zero chance of occurring.  I'm not saying these are surefire lottery picks, but the probability that they could be is enough to like the value received in this trade, even if those picks don't end up being that high.