The problem with the Nets Picks

[henr1k]

We'll have to wait and see but as long as Billy King is there, I am optimistic.

[KCattheStripe]

I think the 2016 nets will be unavoidably awful and probably the 2017 team as well.

[cltc5]

Who cares it's done now and I'm sure Danny thought of this

[celticsclay]

Top 10 cities in the country by Metropolitan area population

1. NY
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Houston
6. Philadelphia
7. Washington
8. Miami
9. Atlanta
10. Boston

Dallas, Philly & Washington did not make the playoffs this year.

Last year - Nets, Wizards, & Rockets did not make the playoffs

Year before - Nets, Wizards, Rockets & Clippers

Year before - Knicks, Sixers, Nets, Wizards, Clippers, & Rockets

Year before - Nets, Knicks, Wizards, & Clippers

Year before - Nets, Knicks, Bulls, Heat, & Clippers

Year before - Sixers, Knicks, Celtics, Bulls, Hawks, & Clippers

I think you get the point.

I appreciate you putting the time to put some data together and providing reasoning for your response. My point back would be that it is a lot more about the owner and the teams willingness to spend rather than the size of the metrolpolitan area. The Hawks and Sixers and Washington have really not had many years of paying the luxury tax and have not really been spenders in any recent time. So your examples, of the knicks missing the playoffs or Dallas are stronger arguments.

 However, Cuban and Dolan have made it rather unusual for their team to be very bad because of how much money they have spent. Thus, even when the knicks missed the playoffs (or Dallas this year) or the lakers about 5 years ago the picks were in the 12-14 range. When the knicks were throwing their money around on Marbury, Steve Francis, Penny Hardaway etc, that was about as bad as it got and they still won 30 games with those teams.

That's my point with this Nets ownership group. They may very well make some stupid moves (like Joe Johnson is ridiculously overpaid), but if they are willing to make some stupid moves they will very rarely, if ever, win 18-25 games and that is my point. Look at Dallas, Lakers and Knicks over the past decade. How many top ten picks did they have? The Nets are unfortunately now in that spending tier. 

[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.

[Sketch5]

I've quickly looked over the FA list for 2015 ad 2016. A lot of mediocre players. A lot pops up in 2015, but it all depends on how well their current teams sell them signing one more year, and then the year after that.

It also depends on last years rookie class. How many of them will be franchise changers a couple years from now that will leave their current teams for less money.

They could land Lebron,Bosh,Love,Gay,or Griffen. I think those are the big names that are still youngish. Wade is free, but I'd be surprised if he can still ball in a couple years.

Every one else pretty much are over the hill, or coming off their rookie contracts.

So they can make a push for a hand full of guys, but so can Boston, they free up space as well. I think it will just depend on how well DA drafts the next two seasons.

Also DA pretty much built this current team with late teens threw early 20's pics. Now he has two chances for the next three years. Any combo of those players picked could be used for an other KG deal.

And Unless we make the playoffs every year and Brooklyn gets the best record, that could be worse case.

[Boris Badenov]

Top 10 cities in the country by Metropolitan area population

1. NY
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Houston
6. Philadelphia
7. Washington
8. Miami
9. Atlanta
10. Boston

Dallas, Philly & Washington did not make the playoffs this year.

Last year - Nets, Wizards, & Rockets did not make the playoffs

Year before - Nets, Wizards, Rockets & Clippers

Year before - Knicks, Sixers, Nets, Wizards, Clippers, & Rockets

Year before - Nets, Knicks, Wizards, & Clippers

Year before - Nets, Knicks, Bulls, Heat, & Clippers

Year before - Sixers, Knicks, Celtics, Bulls, Hawks, & Clippers

I think you get the point.

I appreciate you putting the time to put some data together and providing reasoning for your response. My point back would be that it is a lot more about the owner and the teams willingness to spend rather than the size of the metrolpolitan area. The Hawks and Sixers and Washington have really not had many years of paying the luxury tax and have not really been spenders in any recent time. So your examples, of the knicks missing the playoffs or Dallas are stronger arguments.

 However, Cuban and Dolan have made it rather unusual for their team to be very bad because of how much money they have spent. Thus, even when the knicks missed the playoffs (or Dallas this year) or the lakers about 5 years ago the picks were in the 12-14 range. When the knicks were throwing their money around on Marbury, Steve Francis, Penny Hardaway etc, that was about as bad as it got and they still won 30 games with those teams.

That's my point with this Nets ownership group. They may very well make some stupid moves (like Joe Johnson is ridiculously overpaid), but if they are willing to make some stupid moves they will very rarely, if ever, win 18-25 games and that is my point. Look at Dallas, Lakers and Knicks over the past decade. How many top ten picks did they have? The Nets are unfortunately now in that spending tier.

You can read my post immediately above for discussions of DAL and LAL, but since 2002 the Knicks have had six top 10 picks - including #2 (LaMarcus Aldridge) and #9 (Jo Noah).

Why do they not show up here, on BBRef's list?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/draft.html

It's because...wait for it....they traded those picks away!

[sadleprechaun]

Is it realistic to think that we might pull off a trade with Atlanta for their 2014 pick?  Any sense of what it might take to get that one?

[snively]

Unprotected picks in three consecutive years for a team with an old core and questionable decision making up top - might not be likely that one of those picks ends up in the lottery but there's a decent sized chance.

[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

[wdleehi]

As long as they keep "Knicking" it out, I have hope. 

[erisred]

Will this be the first thread in Celtics blog history where nobody disagrees? I guess maybe I was just stating the obvious, but I had read a lot of people saying they would be lottery picks in other threads.

Hey! We can always hope, can't we?

[wahz]

I think the 2016 nets will be unavoidably awful and probably the 2017 team as well.

We either have or have the option of getting all their first picks in every year from 2016 though 2018. Id say its 50/50 one of those picks is a lotto pick

[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.

[celticsclay]

So for those that were curious, including myself, the best case scenario from a massive spending club in the past ten years lottery was the 2005-2006 knicks that ended up getting the 2nd pick in the draft (but had traded it). That teams roster had a lot of talent for that record

Eddy Curry (at the time was decent 13 and 6)
Jamal Crawford
Stephon Marbury
Matt Barnes
Jalen Rose (Near End of Career, but put up ok numbers)
Antonio Davis (same with lower mpg)
David Lee (not as good as today)
Nate Robinson
Q Richardson
Channing Frye

Obviously a terrible fit of pieces, and also dealt with a lot of injuries, but still surprised they won 22 games

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/2006.html