What if Brooklyn signs Durant this Summer.

[Moranis]

Why do you think the Nets picks in 2017 and 2018 are going to be top 10 picks?  That seems like a very strange position to take for a team that will have cap space and absolutely no incentive to be bad.  The Nets, if necessary, are absolutely going to overpay for free agents on shorter contracts to try and make the playoffs.  Even without real stars, just adding a quality second tier PG and some quality depth will greatly increase the Nets win percentage.  I mean the Nets were a shallow team before losing RHJ and Jack to injuries and one that was often in games with their starters and lost as a result of a terribly thin bench (which is worse now).  They will get those two guys back, plush McCullough, and will most certainly add players in free agency (even if they are just players like Lopez and Afflalo that the Knicks added).  I think it is far more likely the Nets win 45 games than 25 games next year and the year after that.

Can someone explain why some here consider Brooklyn as some major free agent destination? Kidd left for a reason, Hollins was fired, King demoted, and they have no draft picks. The last time I ever heard of a player having the Nets on their "short list" of teams was Howard and Deron Williams years ago. Not even a peep since. In fact, not only do you have a coach bolting to star studded Milwaukee, but you have a player like Pierce leaving for less money to sign with Washington.

Yes, they have money, but so does everyone else. I can easily see them becoming like the Pistons and badly overpaying for lesser talent, in order to have someone join that cesspool. So who will be their Charlie V and Ben Gordon? Does it really matter? They're still going to be a lottery team, especially as the overall young eastern conference continues to improve, and will be banking on Lopez's feet for two more years of wear and tear in oder to NOT give us a (another?) top 3 pick.

The Nets have basically never had cap room since moving to Brooklyn.

[SHAQATTACK]

Durrant should go to Clippers .

cP3 , Durrant , Griffin , Jordon ....> Curry or Pops teams

[Moranis]

Why do you think the Nets picks in 2017 and 2018 are going to be top 10 picks?  That seems like a very strange position to take for a team that will have cap space and absolutely no incentive to be bad.  The Nets, if necessary, are absolutely going to overpay for free agents on shorter contracts to try and make the playoffs.  Even without real stars, just adding a quality second tier PG and some quality depth will greatly increase the Nets win percentage.  I mean the Nets were a shallow team before losing RHJ and Jack to injuries and one that was often in games with their starters and lost as a result of a terribly thin bench (which is worse now).  They will get those two guys back, plush McCullough, and will most certainly add players in free agency (even if they are just players like Lopez and Afflalo that the Knicks added).  I think it is far more likely the Nets win 45 games than 25 games next year and the year after that.

First, let's address the free agent possibilities. There are 15 to 20 teams next year with huge amounts of cap space. The list of impact free agents isn't that large (http://hoopshype.com/2016/01/16/nba-free-agency-2016-the-top-players/) while there's a huge amount of money chasing those free agents (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/10/16/9529643/nba-free-agency-2016-salary-cap-space-billions). We're talking over $1B chasing only a handful of players. That's a lot of money for very few players. If everyone can and will offer big contracts, what do the Nets have to offer? Sure, they might get a guy like Mike Conley but it's not all that likely because most players don't want to play in a high-tax, cold-weather climate for a losing team with few prospects. It's far more likely that at most they may pick up some depth. I would not be at all surprised if they only acquire 3rd tier FAs. 

Secondly, their best players haven't been injured this year and are at their very peaks. There's no young talent to improve (unlike the Celtics) from year to year. RHJ is perhaps the only one and he was averaging 5 ppg before going down to injury. So it's quite unlikely there's going to be any internal improvement and it's far more possible that injuries/age start to take their toll. In short, it's actually a much more likely scenario that the existing players gets worse and not better over the next two years.

Thirdly, looking at straight up talent most of the Eastern Conference is far superior to the Nets. It's not like there's a massive amount of talent on that team right now. Don't talk about guys like Jack having major value to the team. They sucked before he went down. They suck now. Most of the league has passed them by in terms of talent.

Fourth, the Nets have almost zero tradable assets in which to improve. The only guys who are really valuable are Lopez and Young and if those guys go it's much more likely it's for future picks. There's simply not another decent, tradable asset on that team. Danny was able to move players with value for picks and now he'll move picks for players. The Nets have a stockpile of neither.

Could the Nets strike it rich in FA? Yes, but it's highly unlikely. Could the few good players for the Nets stay healthy in 2017 and 2018 despite the minutes and age taking a toll on them? Yes, but it's unlikely. Could someone like RHJ or Shane Larkin become breakout solid players in the coming years? Yes, but it's unlikely. It would take all 3 for the Nets to improve 20 games. Now you're talking about some majorly long odds.

So where's a 20 game improvement going to come from? Remember that there's always going to be 3 or so teams that win fewer than 30 games in any given conference. That's actually a pretty consistent thing. Look at the teams right now - which 3 teams are more likely to win under 30 games while the Nets win 45 in 2017 and 2018? Philly...and who else?

As usual, you overestimate the Nets' chances to greatly improve. I would not be shocked at all if all THREE picks end up in the top 5. That's how bare the cupboard has become for the Nets. GM is out and you'll find that it's probably the most poorly positioned team in the NBA for the next 3 to 5 years.

But they don't need to strike it rich, they need to add 2 or 3 second or third tier free agents to the team to make a major jump. 

Even if they don't sign Conley, any one of Jennings or Rondo would be a major upgrade.  Guys like Eric Gordon, JR Smith, OJ Mayo, etc. would be a major upgrade at the SG position.  They don't need guys even as good as Batum to improve the SF (and having RHJ back will help immensely there).  Deng, Tucker, Parsons, etc. are all available.  They need some depth at PF and C and there are plenty of guys that would easily fill that role, including Amir Johnson, Brandon Bass, etc.  Bodies on the bench is what they need down low. 

So let's say they get Jennings, Gordon, Smith, and guys like Bass for down low and they re-sign Johnson and Jack.  That would give them a basic starting 5 of Jennings, Gordon, Smith, Young, and Lopez with the rotation of RHJ, Jack, Larkin, Bogdanovic, Johnson, McCullough, Bass, Robinson.  Clearly not a title contender, but certainly a team that could easily be a 40 win team and fighting for the playoffs.

[Granath]

But they don't need to strike it rich, they need to add 2 or 3 second or third tier free agents to the team to make a major jump. 

Even if they don't sign Conley, any one of Jennings or Rondo would be a major upgrade.  Guys like Eric Gordon, JR Smith, OJ Mayo, etc. would be a major upgrade at the SG position.  They don't need guys even as good as Batum to improve the SF (and having RHJ back will help immensely there).  Deng, Tucker, Parsons, etc. are all available.  They need some depth at PF and C and there are plenty of guys that would easily fill that role, including Amir Johnson, Brandon Bass, etc.  Bodies on the bench is what they need down low. 

So let's say they get Jennings, Gordon, Smith, and guys like Bass for down low and they re-sign Johnson and Jack.  That would give them a basic starting 5 of Jennings, Gordon, Smith, Young, and Lopez with the rotation of RHJ, Jack, Larkin, Bogdanovic, Johnson, McCullough, Bass, Robinson.  Clearly not a title contender, but certainly a team that could easily be a 40 win team and fighting for the playoffs.

What you posted really proves my point.

What you presented was probably the best-case scenario for the Nets. Here are the assumptions and problems you failed to mention:

1. Jennings recovers from his injury enough to return to his old abilities.
2. The Nets are able to sign 4 of the top 50 free agents despite the competition in the marketplace.
3. No one gets hurt the following year.
4. The team is able to overcome some serious defensive deficiencies.
5. A collective group of inefficient volume shooters somehow mesh together (didn't Detroit already try this with Jennings and failed miserably?).

So your realistic best case scenario appears to have a maximum potential of a 40 win squad. Truthfully, that kind of sucks. I could do the same thing with the Sixers, Lakers or any other horrible squad in the NBA and present a 40 win scenario, never mind that those teams can get major talent in the draft as well.

I'm not denying that this could happen. The Nets could get lucky in FA. They could get lucky in injuries. They might hire a brilliant Head Coach and/or GM. But I'm also a firm believer in understanding what the other 29 teams in the NBA are doing and playing the odds. Things don't happen in a vacuum.

What I see is a team with no youth trying to strike it rich with mid-tier free agents who are willing to come to a losing team to take on a larger role with the hope that the whole thing somehow meshes together. Occasionally this works - aka Charlotte in 2012-2013 with the acquisition of Al Jefferson. But remember that was a young team coming into their prime, not an older team leaving it. Most often it doesn't work at all (aka the 2013-2014 Pistons who didn't improve one win with Jennings and Smith in their backcourt despite the improved play of Drummond and Monroe). Thus when you look at the entirety of the picture, the odds are that the Nets will continue to be a bottom feeder team for the next 3 years.

I said when the PP/KG trade was made that the Nets' picks in 2016-2018 had a likelihood of being top 10 picks. Not just a chance but a probability. Nothing so far has changed my opinion of those odds.

Let me ask you this. Imagine you are a GM and all 30 teams want your service, all with full control and no ownership interference. Is there any team in the NBA that you'd want to take over less than the Nets? So go ahead and bookmark this thread. If the Nets are well on their way to a 40+ win season next year, feel free to bring it up and I'll admit I was wrong. But that means they succeeded despite the odds. Personally, I'm a firm believer in playing them and thus I'm betting those picks in both 2017 and 2018 are lottery picks.

[KeepRondo]

Durrant should go to Clippers .

cP3 , Durrant , Griffin , Jordon ....> Curry or Pops teams

Golden State probably still better than Clips.

They got the players, system and chemistry.

[Evantime34]

I can't believe this thread has made it this far. Do people enjoy being pessimistic so much?

Durant signing in Brooklyn isn't happening unless Prokorov kidnaps Durant's family and forces him to sign at gun point.

If Durant wanted to play in New York, I promise you he would sign with New York and not Brooklyn. He could also sign in LA and be on a team with a greater ability to surround him with good players using their trade assets. If he wants to win he could go to Golden State. If he wants to go home he would play in Washington.

Regardless of his motivation there is no factor that would have the Nets as the front runners to sign Durant. It's just not happening.

[Moranis]

But they don't need to strike it rich, they need to add 2 or 3 second or third tier free agents to the team to make a major jump. 

Even if they don't sign Conley, any one of Jennings or Rondo would be a major upgrade.  Guys like Eric Gordon, JR Smith, OJ Mayo, etc. would be a major upgrade at the SG position.  They don't need guys even as good as Batum to improve the SF (and having RHJ back will help immensely there).  Deng, Tucker, Parsons, etc. are all available.  They need some depth at PF and C and there are plenty of guys that would easily fill that role, including Amir Johnson, Brandon Bass, etc.  Bodies on the bench is what they need down low. 

So let's say they get Jennings, Gordon, Smith, and guys like Bass for down low and they re-sign Johnson and Jack.  That would give them a basic starting 5 of Jennings, Gordon, Smith, Young, and Lopez with the rotation of RHJ, Jack, Larkin, Bogdanovic, Johnson, McCullough, Bass, Robinson.  Clearly not a title contender, but certainly a team that could easily be a 40 win team and fighting for the playoffs.

What you posted really proves my point.

What you presented was probably the best-case scenario for the Nets. Here are the assumptions and problems you failed to mention:

1. Jennings recovers from his injury enough to return to his old abilities.
2. The Nets are able to sign 4 of the top 50 free agents despite the competition in the marketplace.
3. No one gets hurt the following year.
4. The team is able to overcome some serious defensive deficiencies.
5. A collective group of inefficient volume shooters somehow mesh together (didn't Detroit already try this with Jennings and failed miserably?).

So your realistic best case scenario appears to have a maximum potential of a 40 win squad. Truthfully, that kind of sucks. I could do the same thing with the Sixers, Lakers or any other horrible squad in the NBA and present a 40 win scenario, never mind that those teams can get major talent in the draft as well.

I'm not denying that this could happen. The Nets could get lucky in FA. They could get lucky in injuries. They might hire a brilliant Head Coach and/or GM. But I'm also a firm believer in understanding what the other 29 teams in the NBA are doing and playing the odds. Things don't happen in a vacuum.

What I see is a team with no youth trying to strike it rich with mid-tier free agents who are willing to come to a losing team to take on a larger role with the hope that the whole thing somehow meshes together. Occasionally this works - aka Charlotte in 2012-2013 with the acquisition of Al Jefferson. But remember that was a young team coming into their prime, not an older team leaving it. Most often it doesn't work at all (aka the 2013-2014 Pistons who didn't improve one win with Jennings and Smith in their backcourt despite the improved play of Drummond and Monroe). Thus when you look at the entirety of the picture, the odds are that the Nets will continue to be a bottom feeder team for the next 3 years.

I said when the PP/KG trade was made that the Nets' picks in 2016-2018 had a likelihood of being top 10 picks. Not just a chance but a probability. Nothing so far has changed my opinion of those odds.

Let me ask you this. Imagine you are a GM and all 30 teams want your service, all with full control and no ownership interference. Is there any team in the NBA that you'd want to take over less than the Nets? So go ahead and bookmark this thread. If the Nets are well on their way to a 40+ win season next year, feel free to bring it up and I'll admit I was wrong. But that means they succeeded despite the odds. Personally, I'm a firm believer in playing them and thus I'm betting those picks in both 2017 and 2018 are lottery picks.

Oh I think the Nets have the worst situation in basketball.  They are a bad team that doesn't own their next 3 draft picks (though obviously will have a pick in 17).  I just don't expect the 17 and 18 picks to be that great of picks for us, because they don't own them and they have no incentive to be bad.  I fully expect the Nets to acquire mid-tier players on short term by higher dollar contracts.  I mean the Nets were a 30% win team with Jack at PG, they have been under 17% since Jack went down.  Jack is terrible and yet they have essentially became the worst team in basketball without him (and were a bad team with with him).  Any sort of talent upgrade (and thus moving guys like Jack and Larkin back into a backup role) and the Nets will see significant improvement in the win column.  Aside from Jack being a starting PG, the Nets biggest problem is their lack of depth.  I fully expect the Nets to correct that this summer through free agency and they get both RHJ and McCullough back from injury as well.  Two young guys with talent.  Before he went down RHJ was looking like a serious defensive force and McCullough has a ton of talent who fell as far as he did as a result of his injury. 

[wiley]

But they don't need to strike it rich, they need to add 2 or 3 second or third tier free agents to the team to make a major jump. 

Even if they don't sign Conley, any one of Jennings or Rondo would be a major upgrade.  Guys like Eric Gordon, JR Smith, OJ Mayo, etc. would be a major upgrade at the SG position.  They don't need guys even as good as Batum to improve the SF (and having RHJ back will help immensely there).  Deng, Tucker, Parsons, etc. are all available.  They need some depth at PF and C and there are plenty of guys that would easily fill that role, including Amir Johnson, Brandon Bass, etc.  Bodies on the bench is what they need down low. 

So let's say they get Jennings, Gordon, Smith, and guys like Bass for down low and they re-sign Johnson and Jack.  That would give them a basic starting 5 of Jennings, Gordon, Smith, Young, and Lopez with the rotation of RHJ, Jack, Larkin, Bogdanovic, Johnson, McCullough, Bass, Robinson.  Clearly not a title contender, but certainly a team that could easily be a 40 win team and fighting for the playoffs.

What you posted really proves my point.

What you presented was probably the best-case scenario for the Nets. Here are the assumptions and problems you failed to mention:

1. Jennings recovers from his injury enough to return to his old abilities.
2. The Nets are able to sign 4 of the top 50 free agents despite the competition in the marketplace.
3. No one gets hurt the following year.
4. The team is able to overcome some serious defensive deficiencies.
5. A collective group of inefficient volume shooters somehow mesh together (didn't Detroit already try this with Jennings and failed miserably?).

So your realistic best case scenario appears to have a maximum potential of a 40 win squad. Truthfully, that kind of sucks. I could do the same thing with the Sixers, Lakers or any other horrible squad in the NBA and present a 40 win scenario, never mind that those teams can get major talent in the draft as well.

I'm not denying that this could happen. The Nets could get lucky in FA. They could get lucky in injuries. They might hire a brilliant Head Coach and/or GM. But I'm also a firm believer in understanding what the other 29 teams in the NBA are doing and playing the odds. Things don't happen in a vacuum.

What I see is a team with no youth trying to strike it rich with mid-tier free agents who are willing to come to a losing team to take on a larger role with the hope that the whole thing somehow meshes together. Occasionally this works - aka Charlotte in 2012-2013 with the acquisition of Al Jefferson. But remember that was a young team coming into their prime, not an older team leaving it. Most often it doesn't work at all (aka the 2013-2014 Pistons who didn't improve one win with Jennings and Smith in their backcourt despite the improved play of Drummond and Monroe). Thus when you look at the entirety of the picture, the odds are that the Nets will continue to be a bottom feeder team for the next 3 years.

I said when the PP/KG trade was made that the Nets' picks in 2016-2018 had a likelihood of being top 10 picks. Not just a chance but a probability. Nothing so far has changed my opinion of those odds.

Let me ask you this. Imagine you are a GM and all 30 teams want your service, all with full control and no ownership interference. Is there any team in the NBA that you'd want to take over less than the Nets? So go ahead and bookmark this thread. If the Nets are well on their way to a 40+ win season next year, feel free to bring it up and I'll admit I was wrong. But that means they succeeded despite the odds. Personally, I'm a firm believer in playing them and thus I'm betting those picks in both 2017 and 2018 are lottery picks.

Oh I think the Nets have the worst situation in basketball.  They are a bad team that doesn't own their next 3 draft picks (though obviously will have a pick in 17).  I just don't expect the 17 and 18 picks to be that great of picks for us, because they don't own them and they have no incentive to be bad.  I fully expect the Nets to acquire mid-tier players on short term by higher dollar contracts.  I mean the Nets were a 30% win team with Jack at PG, they have been under 17% since Jack went down.  Jack is terrible and yet they have essentially became the worst team in basketball without him (and were a bad team with with him).  Any sort of talent upgrade (and thus moving guys like Jack and Larkin back into a backup role) and the Nets will see significant improvement in the win column.  Aside from Jack being a starting PG, the Nets biggest problem is their lack of depth.  I fully expect the Nets to correct that this summer through free agency and they get both RHJ and McCullough back from injury as well.  Two young guys with talent.  Before he went down RHJ was looking like a serious defensive force and McCullough has a ton of talent who fell as far as he did as a result of his injury.

Next year imo will be precarious.  No more Joe Johnson.  How well will Jack recover from injury?  I agree they should be deeper, but they are still one or two injuries away from being the worst team in the league.  If Lopez goes down they will absolutely have the most ping pong balls at the end of next year.  The Lakers and Sixers should both step out of the bottom 2, though I guess the Sixers are still very questionable for next year.  With a good free agency and most importantly health I agree the Nets could get back to being 5-8th worst in the league.

[ReadyFor17]

But they don't need to strike it rich, they need to add 2 or 3 second or third tier free agents to the team to make a major jump. 

Even if they don't sign Conley, any one of Jennings or Rondo would be a major upgrade.  Guys like Eric Gordon, JR Smith, OJ Mayo, etc. would be a major upgrade at the SG position.  They don't need guys even as good as Batum to improve the SF (and having RHJ back will help immensely there).  Deng, Tucker, Parsons, etc. are all available.  They need some depth at PF and C and there are plenty of guys that would easily fill that role, including Amir Johnson, Brandon Bass, etc.  Bodies on the bench is what they need down low. 

So let's say they get Jennings, Gordon, Smith, and guys like Bass for down low and they re-sign Johnson and Jack.  That would give them a basic starting 5 of Jennings, Gordon, Smith, Young, and Lopez with the rotation of RHJ, Jack, Larkin, Bogdanovic, Johnson, McCullough, Bass, Robinson.  Clearly not a title contender, but certainly a team that could easily be a 40 win team and fighting for the playoffs.

What you posted really proves my point.

What you presented was probably the best-case scenario for the Nets. Here are the assumptions and problems you failed to mention:

1. Jennings recovers from his injury enough to return to his old abilities.
2. The Nets are able to sign 4 of the top 50 free agents despite the competition in the marketplace.
3. No one gets hurt the following year.
4. The team is able to overcome some serious defensive deficiencies.
5. A collective group of inefficient volume shooters somehow mesh together (didn't Detroit already try this with Jennings and failed miserably?).

So your realistic best case scenario appears to have a maximum potential of a 40 win squad. Truthfully, that kind of sucks. I could do the same thing with the Sixers, Lakers or any other horrible squad in the NBA and present a 40 win scenario, never mind that those teams can get major talent in the draft as well.

I'm not denying that this could happen. The Nets could get lucky in FA. They could get lucky in injuries. They might hire a brilliant Head Coach and/or GM. But I'm also a firm believer in understanding what the other 29 teams in the NBA are doing and playing the odds. Things don't happen in a vacuum.

What I see is a team with no youth trying to strike it rich with mid-tier free agents who are willing to come to a losing team to take on a larger role with the hope that the whole thing somehow meshes together. Occasionally this works - aka Charlotte in 2012-2013 with the acquisition of Al Jefferson. But remember that was a young team coming into their prime, not an older team leaving it. Most often it doesn't work at all (aka the 2013-2014 Pistons who didn't improve one win with Jennings and Smith in their backcourt despite the improved play of Drummond and Monroe). Thus when you look at the entirety of the picture, the odds are that the Nets will continue to be a bottom feeder team for the next 3 years.

I said when the PP/KG trade was made that the Nets' picks in 2016-2018 had a likelihood of being top 10 picks. Not just a chance but a probability. Nothing so far has changed my opinion of those odds.

Let me ask you this. Imagine you are a GM and all 30 teams want your service, all with full control and no ownership interference. Is there any team in the NBA that you'd want to take over less than the Nets? So go ahead and bookmark this thread. If the Nets are well on their way to a 40+ win season next year, feel free to bring it up and I'll admit I was wrong. But that means they succeeded despite the odds. Personally, I'm a firm believer in playing them and thus I'm betting those picks in both 2017 and 2018 are lottery picks.

Yup, I think people sometimes focus on the Nets and only the Nets when having this discussion. That's why many slept on how bad they would be this year despite the clear signs that the bottom of the East was trending WAY up after last season. The Nets have a bunch of teams to pass to get out of lottery range moving forward and many of them are still in the process of improving organically (while possessing multiple avenues of growth) while the Nets have no choice but to try to Frankenstein their way to being a modestly successful team.

I'm an optimist though and have said all along that if blowing through cap space on guys like Jennings and Gordon is the best they can do then we should already start celebrating.

[KGs Knee]

What if MJ finds a time machine and comes out of retirement to sign with the Nets?

That's just as likely.

But sometimes I like reading these type of threads, usually the first few pages are pure comedic gold.