Simmons on the Eastern Conference / Celtics

[mmmmm]

I don't see why you don't think the Nets will stink for years into the future.

Quick list of the reasons:

1. Deron Williams, Joe Johnson, Brook Lopez all locked up for the near future.

That's part of the problem for _why_ they will likely have trouble staying competitive.

Johnson and D-Will will together account for $46M in guaranteed salary for 2015-16.

Lopez is not, contrary to your language, 'locked up' for that season, but instead has a player option for $16.7M.   Assuming he stays healthy, he will almost certainly decline it UNLESS they extend him at a higher value.  The reason is that he will be worth much more on the open market.

So, they will have a choice:  Extend Lopez at around 20M, tying up around 66M on just those three players or trade him.

Even IF Lopez got the worst advice in the world from his agent and went ahead and played that season on his player option, they would be over the likely salary cap.

So if Lopez is still there, the only bodies they will be able to put around those three that season will be through resigning their own restricted and Bird-rights free agents, minimum contracts and the Mid-Level Exception contract (The Lesser, for tax-payers, likely).  The only 'new blood' they will have added will be the worst of theirs or Atlanta's 2015 draft pick (because ATL has swap rights on THAT one as well as this coming 2014 one).

Now, they may go ahead and extend Lopez and just gut out that season, knowing that they would get salary relief the following year and could choose to build around Lopez.

But my guess is that they will probably look to trade Lopez before then to get rebuilding pieces (young players, draft picks).  But if that happens, then that 2015-16 roster will consist of Johnson, D-Will and rebuilding scraps around them.

2. The Nets have all the money in the world, and no incentive to not continue spending it to field a competitive team.  They have no picks so it's not like they can have a "bridge year" to try and replenish the talent on the team.

CBA rules beg to differ.  All the money in the world doesn't matter.  It can help you resign your Bird Rights FAs to big contracts to keep them.  But it can't help you buy big external free agents unless you drop way under the cap.   It can help you stay over the cap with trades ... but only up to the hard cap.   And they won't have much to trade.

The Nets may or may not make much of a recovery this season, but the path back from desolation to mediocrity isn't so hard to see for them.  Fire Kidd, sign some competent veterans on minimum deals, get a contributor for the mini-MLE, and have anything better than abysmal luck with injuries. 

If they're really desperate, they can trade Deron or Lopez for a package of 3-4 role players in their twenties who can shore up the weak spots and keep them around .500.

Not sure why anyone would give up much for Deron Williams unless he proves he can stay at least a little healthy and play at a high level again.   He's way too expensive.  Unless someone shows up who needs 21M of cap relief in 2016 (last year before early termination option in 2017), who would trade anything for that contract?

And there no way anyone is going to want to eat Johnson's final 25M season.

Lopez is the only significant trading piece they have and the problem for them is that the timing of his player option puts them at a disadvantage.

It's certainly always possible to rebuild back to mediocrity from any point in the NBA - it just can take a few years.

But the 2015-2016 Nets roster looks right now like a train wreck about to happen.

[ssspence]

For Rondo, I've maintained that I think any trade package for him will have to include at least one pick, at least one nice (but not necessarily great) prospect, and an opportunity to unload significant future salary.

  I don't think Danny wants to trade star players for nice pieces that won't get you anywhere, he wants to trade nice pieces for star players. People saw Danny trade KG and PP and decided that he was tanking when it's just as likely that he was getting what he could for players who were no longer stars.

 

If the only adequate price for Rondo is an established star player, then he's never going to be traded.

You may be right, but I'm not so sure that Danny would necessarily reject a package that checks off a lot of boxes but doesn't include an established star.  I do think there would need to be a player coming back who has at least a chance of becoming All-Star caliber.

Then, he's probably never going to get traded.

Right. This is too black and white.

Yes, Ainge would rather trade pieces for stars than the other way around (what GM wouldn't?). But you have to have pieces to trade for stars in the first place. I doubt Ainge feels he's done compiling pieces right now.

So if Ainge doesn't believe in building around Rondo (we'll see), and he prefers some of the pieces he has now -- Sully, Bradley, etc -- as long term parts of the team in their respective roles, then he may very well trade Rondo for pieces that could convert an all-star in the future, whether through draft or trade.

This notion that Rondo or any other player can only be traded for as good or better a player in their prime is naive. It's about asset allocation and value. Ainge has never found enough value for Rondo, so he hasn't traded him. That's not likely to change.

But the big variable is Rondo's deal. I have my doubts as to whether Ainge wants to sign Rondo to a max extension. And if that's indeed anything but a slam dunk, then Ainge is sure to consider what he can get for RR at this year's deadline, or latest over the summer.

I'm not saying the Cs are eager to trade Rondo. But none of us is Ainge, so suggesting they won't listen to anything but a star -- and please no one feed me that Flip Saunders quote from the Herald again -- just because of the face they have to put on in the media is just not realistic. They'll be creative and see what they can get for him at best -- even if it's 'pieces' -- and then consider that maxed value carefully, like every other team.

[kozlodoev]

For Rondo, I've maintained that I think any trade package for him will have to include at least one pick, at least one nice (but not necessarily great) prospect, and an opportunity to unload significant future salary.

  I don't think Danny wants to trade star players for nice pieces that won't get you anywhere, he wants to trade nice pieces for star players. People saw Danny trade KG and PP and decided that he was tanking when it's just as likely that he was getting what he could for players who were no longer stars.

 

If the only adequate price for Rondo is an established star player, then he's never going to be traded.

You may be right, but I'm not so sure that Danny would necessarily reject a package that checks off a lot of boxes but doesn't include an established star.  I do think there would need to be a player coming back who has at least a chance of becoming All-Star caliber.

Then, he's probably never going to get traded.

And that's just fine.

[Celtics18]

For Rondo, I've maintained that I think any trade package for him will have to include at least one pick, at least one nice (but not necessarily great) prospect, and an opportunity to unload significant future salary.

  I don't think Danny wants to trade star players for nice pieces that won't get you anywhere, he wants to trade nice pieces for star players. People saw Danny trade KG and PP and decided that he was tanking when it's just as likely that he was getting what he could for players who were no longer stars.

 

If the only adequate price for Rondo is an established star player, then he's never going to be traded.

You may be right, but I'm not so sure that Danny would necessarily reject a package that checks off a lot of boxes but doesn't include an established star.  I do think there would need to be a player coming back who has at least a chance of becoming All-Star caliber.

Then, he's probably never going to get traded.

And that's just fine.
[/quote]

Exactly.

[BballTim]

For Rondo, I've maintained that I think any trade package for him will have to include at least one pick, at least one nice (but not necessarily great) prospect, and an opportunity to unload significant future salary.

  I don't think Danny wants to trade star players for nice pieces that won't get you anywhere, he wants to trade nice pieces for star players. People saw Danny trade KG and PP and decided that he was tanking when it's just as likely that he was getting what he could for players who were no longer stars.

 

If the only adequate price for Rondo is an established star player, then he's never going to be traded.

You may be right, but I'm not so sure that Danny would necessarily reject a package that checks off a lot of boxes but doesn't include an established star.  I do think there would need to be a player coming back who has at least a chance of becoming All-Star caliber.

Then, he's probably never going to get traded.

Right. This is too black and white.

Yes, Ainge would rather trade pieces for stars than the other way around (what GM wouldn't?). But you have to have pieces to trade for stars in the first place. I doubt Ainge feels he's done compiling pieces right now.

So if Ainge doesn't believe in building around Rondo (we'll see), and he prefers some of the pieces he has now -- Sully, Bradley, etc -- as long term parts of the team in their respective roles, then he may very well trade Rondo for pieces that could convert an all-star in the future, whether through draft or trade.

  So you think it's likely Danny's plan is to get his role players in place and then try to acquire some stars around them?

[nickagneta]

Why the assumption Rondo will want a max deal. He took a discount the first time around because he loved the team and thought it best for the team. I could see him doing something similar again.

Say what you want about Rondo, but playing in Boston has never been about getting every last dime he could out of this organization. The man never talks money or contract....ever. I could see the C's tacking on 3 years and $45-48 million onto his contract but not max.

[Interceptor]

Why the assumption Rondo will want a max deal. He took a discount the first time around because he loved the team and thought it best for the team. I could see him doing something similar again.

I had always assumed it was because he couldn't shoot. Now he can sorta shoot, but still can't hit a FT. That seems like a problem for a max contract, since he's a PG.

[Celtics18]

  When Rondo's healthy he plays like a star in the playoffs. You need players like that if you want to contend. You're unlikely to find one amongst the return pieces in your trade.

Correct.  A Rondo trade would signal that the plan is to break things down a bit and build them back up with newer, younger pieces, because there isn't going to be a piece in the deal that is on the same level as Rondo at the time of the trade.  Otherwise the trade wouldn't make sense from the other team's perspective.


I think such a trade could happen because Danny Ainge's rebuilding MO is all about building up multiple, fungible assets to afford for maximum flexibility so that he can be really opportunistic and creative making deals.

If Rondo were 24 or 25 years old, I'd be much more skeptical that he could traded.  But even assuming a very optimistic rebuild schedule, Rondo's going to be 30 before this team is ready to have a competitive playoff series against a contending team.

  Right now, in terms of assets, Danny's got Sully/KO/Bradley/Vitor/Crawford plus contracts in Huphries and Bogans plus a trade exception plus players like Bass and Lee along with 9 first round picks in the last 5 years. He's not at the point where he's trying to gather assets, he's at the point where he's figuring out what to do with them. There's no reason to think it will take 3 years to make a move.

But there's your problem right there -- you just listed a bunch of guys, but I think Sullinger's the only really notable asset of the bunch.  The team might not even re-sign Bradley. 

The rest of the players you mentioned probably wouldn't fetch a 1st round pick on the trade market.  And those future picks are definitely nice, but until we have any idea where they'll land it's impossible to assess their value.

Since the team likely won't get a high pick in the lottery this season, trading Rondo might be the only way to add another couple of really significant assets to the pot, unless Ainge finds another gem in the latter half of the 1st round.


Also -- when I say that I think it'll take at least 3 years, I'm not just talking about making the move for the right pieces.  It takes time for a team to grow together, too, unless the collection of talent is just off the charts.

I think that the value of our plethora of first round picks in the next five years is being greatly under appreciated.  Even if none of them end up being in the lottery, there's big time value in having that many first round picks for the foreseeable future.

I expect Danny to be able to trade some off for good value and to find some good keepers with that bounty of draft picks. 

It seems to me that a lot of fans and media members alike are under the impression that there is something approaching a linear relationship between where a player was drafted and how good a pro he will become.  Sure, if you get a top three to top four pick, you have a better chance of that player working out, but once you start moving beyond that, the fluctuation between where a player was picked and his ultimate value as an NBA player starts to become much greater.

I think this year's draft is looking like one of those rare drafts where a top four pick is gold, but after that, I like Danny's chances at 15 through 20 almost as much as I like them at 5 through 10.  The same will hold true for '15, '16, '17, and '18. 

Sure, a higher number is nicer, but I wouldn't scoff at having 10 mid first round picks over the course of the next five years.  If we get a little lucky, one or two of those may even end up in the lottery without us having to tank. 

[snively]

Bill is still too excitable to be a reliable b-ball analyst.  Loved the description of Brooklyn as basketball S&M though.

[MBunge]

it depends whether or not you think the team needs to take some steps back before it can take a few more steps forward. 

It also depends on how much you have to damage yourself to take those steps back.  Take Philly, for example.  They did it in just about the best way possible in trading away their best player for an injured top draft pick, virtually ensuring they'll suck their way into another top pick.  But even there...

1.  Noel may never pan out.

2.  Philly might not get one of the franchise-type players in the coming draft.

3.  All of their younger players are enduring another season of losing, this time after they seemed on the brink of at least being a playoff contender.  That can't breed good habits.

How much damage you do to yourself has to be considered in the whole "blowing it up" discussion.

Mike

[get_banners]

We definitely have a slightly inflated win total...but I still think the real issue is people massively underrated us. We weren't going to be very good...but we have way too much talent to be a bottom 5 team.

[action781]

2. The Nets have all the money in the world, and no incentive to not continue spending it to field a competitive team.  They have no picks so it's not like they can have a "bridge year" to try and replenish the talent on the team.

CBA rules beg to differ.  All the money in the world doesn't matter.  It can help you resign your Bird Rights FAs to big contracts to keep them.  But it can't help you buy big external free agents unless you drop way under the cap.   It can help you stay over the cap with trades ... but only up to the hard cap.   And they won't have much to trade.

Yeah, but they don't need a big free agent, they just need to fill in the gaps with some role players.  At some point, there will be teams that would love to trade away a Rudy Gay, Boozer, Bargnani type player on a multi-year deal for an expiring Pierce.  Or fill several of those holes by trading a KG/Pierce expiring deal to a team like Boston, Orlando, or Toronto for several of their multi-year contract role player.

[guava_wrench]

  When Rondo's healthy he plays like a star in the playoffs. You need players like that if you want to contend. You're unlikely to find one amongst the return pieces in your trade.

Correct.  A Rondo trade would signal that the plan is to break things down a bit and build them back up with newer, younger pieces, because there isn't going to be a piece in the deal that is on the same level as Rondo at the time of the trade.  Otherwise the trade wouldn't make sense from the other team's perspective.


I think such a trade could happen because Danny Ainge's rebuilding MO is all about building up multiple, fungible assets to afford for maximum flexibility so that he can be really opportunistic and creative making deals.

If Rondo were 24 or 25 years old, I'd be much more skeptical that he could traded.  But even assuming a very optimistic rebuild schedule, Rondo's going to be 30 before this team is ready to have a competitive playoff series against a contending team.

  Right now, in terms of assets, Danny's got Sully/KO/Bradley/Vitor/Crawford plus contracts in Huphries and Bogans plus a trade exception plus players like Bass and Lee along with 9 first round picks in the last 5 years. He's not at the point where he's trying to gather assets, he's at the point where he's figuring out what to do with them. There's no reason to think it will take 3 years to make a move.

But there's your problem right there -- you just listed a bunch of guys, but I think Sullinger's the only really notable asset of the bunch.  The team might not even re-sign Bradley. 

The rest of the players you mentioned probably wouldn't fetch a 1st round pick on the trade market.  And those future picks are definitely nice, but until we have any idea where they'll land it's impossible to assess their value.

Since the team likely won't get a high pick in the lottery this season, trading Rondo might be the only way to add another couple of really significant assets to the pot, unless Ainge finds another gem in the latter half of the 1st round.


Also -- when I say that I think it'll take at least 3 years, I'm not just talking about making the move for the right pieces.  It takes time for a team to grow together, too, unless the collection of talent is just off the charts.

I think that the value of our plethora of first round picks in the next five years is being greatly under appreciated.  Even if none of them end up being in the lottery, there's big time value in having that many first round picks for the foreseeable future.

I expect Danny to be able to trade some off for good value and to find some good keepers with that bounty of draft picks. 

It seems to me that a lot of fans and media members alike are under the impression that there is something approaching a linear relationship between where a player was drafted and how good a pro he will become.  Sure, if you get a top three to top four pick, you have a better chance of that player working out, but once you start moving beyond that, the fluctuation between where a player was picked and his ultimate value as an NBA player starts to become much greater.

I think this year's draft is looking like one of those rare drafts where a top four pick is gold, but after that, I like Danny's chances at 15 through 20 almost as much as I like them at 5 through 10.  The same will hold true for '15, '16, '17, and '18. 

Sure, a higher number is nicer, but I wouldn't scoff at having 10 mid first round picks over the course of the next five years.  If we get a little lucky, one or two of those may even end up in the lottery without us having to tank.

If you want to analyze relationships, it won't tell us how good any individual pick will be. It will show us how much more likely it is that a pick at a particular position will turn out to be a superstar, but that is it.

We also shouldn't forget that players are picked at a spot based on who is picking. You could have similar guys at picks 3-6, but a team needing a PG is drafting so they go with the PG from the 4 players.

Regardless, a higher pick means a better chance at getting a better player.

[LarBrd33]

We're kinda right where we expected to be.  10th worst record in the league... Brooklyn and New York aren't supposed to be this bad.  Presumably when D-Will and Chandler come back, those teams will start rolling.  That pushes us to 8th worst record in the league.  A Top 8 pick is what I expected.

Unfortunately, 8th worst record in the league might mean the playoffs for us with how lopsided the conferences are right now.  Which would mean nothing better than the #15 pick.

Maybe we keep winning and get above .500.  Who knows.  I think Simmons wrote that 3 wins ago.

[Celtics18]

We're kinda right where we expected to be.  10th worst record in the league... Brooklyn and New York aren't supposed to be this bad.  Presumably when D-Will and Chandler come back, those teams will start rolling.  That pushes us to 8th worst record in the league.  A Top 8 pick is what I expected.

Unfortunately, 8th worst record in the league might mean the playoffs for us with how lopsided the conferences are right now.  Which would mean nothing better than the #15 pick.

Maybe we keep winning and get above .500.  Who knows.  I think Simmons wrote that 3 wins ago.

Nope.  We're actually 13th worst in the league, just fractions of a percentage above Minnesota, Charlotte, and Chicago.  Of course, we can expect improvement, as well, once Rondo returns.  I wouldn't be so sure about your prediction that we'll finish 8th worst. 

I think we could easily be as low as 15th or 14th worst by seasons end.  We may even end up being slightly worse than that at being worst.