Brooklyn is going to be terrible- We really could get a top 5 pick this year...

[Boris Badenov]

If the last few years have proven anything, it's that it is really, really hard to be one of the 5 worst teams in the league - even if you wouldn't mind being awful.

Brooklyn will actively try not to be awful, barring a major (and incredibly stupid) shift in franchise strategy.

I just don't see it happening.

[bdm860]

I'd like us to pull through on the rumored "all-in" push for Horford, probably has to include the swap pick and a lot more, rather than giving it back to BKN for Lopez. I like Horford more even though Lopez is a monster on offense when healthy. I doubt either deal would/could be made, but I really like Al.

I wonder what it would actually take to land either... I'm sure someone will make a thread about the Horford rumor one day and I'll see what people would give up.

I was just thinking, everyone wants to send Big Sully out the door but would give up tons of assets for guys who go down every season too.

For all the talk about Brook Lopez being injury prone, I would be very interested to see how everyone views Horford.  Over the last 7 years, Horford's played 415 games to Lopez's 414, while both had season-ending injuries in '12 and '14 with both players re-injuring the same body part in '14 that they had injured in '12.  Somehow though, I don't think I'd hear the injury prone complaint as much with Horford, but I'm sure I'd hear how he's a better rebounder (better check those rebounding stats again though, in fact compare all numbers for last season, pretty similar, except of course in the win column).

Though I will admit, I am more of a fan of Horford's game than Lopez's.  But much harder to get a guy from a 60 win team looking to contend than it is from a 38 win team looking to rebuild, whether it's through a trade or free agency.

[saltlover]

I'd like us to pull through on the rumored "all-in" push for Horford, probably has to include the swap pick and a lot more, rather than giving it back to BKN for Lopez. I like Horford more even though Lopez is a monster on offense when healthy. I doubt either deal would/could be made, but I really like Al.

I wonder what it would actually take to land either... I'm sure someone will make a thread about the Horford rumor one day and I'll see what people would give up.

I was just thinking, everyone wants to send Big Sully out the door but would give up tons of assets for guys who go down every season too.

For all the talk about Brook Lopez being injury prone, I would be very interested to see how everyone views Horford.  Over the last 7 years, Horford's played 415 games to Lopez's 414, while both had season-ending injuries in '12 and '14 with both players re-injuring the same body part in '14 that they had injured in '12.  Somehow though, I don't think I'd hear the injury prone complaint as much with Horford, but I'm sure I'd hear how he's a better rebounder (better check those rebounding stats again though, in fact compare all numbers for last season, pretty similar, except of course in the win column).

Though I will admit, I am more of a fan of Horford's game than Lopez's.  But much harder to get a guy from a 60 win team looking to contend than it is from a 38 win team looking to rebuild, whether it's through a trade or free agency.

I think Horford is somewhat injury prone.  Feet scare me more than pectoral muscles, but maybe that's just because feet injuries are more common (not a doctor).  I think the label was definitely (and aptly) put on him after the second pec tear.  He's a better player than Lopez, and in free agency next year I'd be fine with Ainge taking the risk on him, although partly due to the fact that I'm expecting an amnesty provision with the next CBA, so if he got hurt again it would set the Celtics owners back, but wouldn't have to hurt from a salary cap perspective.  The Hawks improvement wasn't all just Horford, but it does show you the talent disparity between the Hawks and Nets.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

I'd like us to pull through on the rumored "all-in" push for Horford, probably has to include the swap pick and a lot more, rather than giving it back to BKN for Lopez. I like Horford more even though Lopez is a monster on offense when healthy. I doubt either deal would/could be made, but I really like Al.

I wonder what it would actually take to land either... I'm sure someone will make a thread about the Horford rumor one day and I'll see what people would give up.

I was just thinking, everyone wants to send Big Sully out the door but would give up tons of assets for guys who go down every season too.

For all the talk about Brook Lopez being injury prone, I would be very interested to see how everyone views Horford.  Over the last 7 years, Horford's played 415 games to Lopez's 414, while both had season-ending injuries in '12 and '14 with both players re-injuring the same body part in '14 that they had injured in '12.  Somehow though, I don't think I'd hear the injury prone complaint as much with Horford, but I'm sure I'd hear how he's a better rebounder (better check those rebounding stats again though, in fact compare all numbers for last season, pretty similar, except of course in the win column).

Though I will admit, I am more of a fan of Horford's game than Lopez's.  But much harder to get a guy from a 60 win team looking to contend than it is from a 38 win team looking to rebuild, whether it's through a trade or free agency.

Yep, I said "guys." Both of them have been dropping like flies, a lot, over the past few years.

[mctyson]

I'm not greedy.  I'll take a top ten pick from the Nets; it doesn't have to be top five.

This.  Brooklyn will be bad enough to get us a nice lottery pick this year.  We will be happy.

[BornReady]

Dallas miss playoffs if dirk is injured, or Matthews doesn't come back fully healed
As jazz, and okc I believe are making the playoffs this season
Jazz saw major strides after trading kanter hopefully it continues

Nets definitely miss playoffs with Miami and Indy I think replacing them and us
I think heat, Pacers, Celtics, pistons, Knicks, Orlando are better than them
So fingers crossed to a projected bottom 5
Not as bad as Minnesota, Philly and Denver but still terrible

[mctyson]

I wouldn't count on Brooklyn sucking.  They finished the season strong.  Brook Lopez and Thad Young made a difference.  I think our pick from them will end up in the 12-17 range.

This is exactly what I thought too. Then they traded Plumlee, KG left, Teletovic went down, Johnson got older and had his 5th straight season of decline.

I'm getting pretty bored of this topic, but i'll just briefly touch on this.

- Plumlee was irrelevant in the second half of the season.
- Swapping KG for Thad Young gave them a major positive Jolt
- Teletovic?  Lol
- Johnson... eh... still a solid player
- Lopez was beasting over the past three months of the season.  That makes a difference as a healthy Lopez is a force down low.

Agree to disagree.  Hope you guys end up right.

No you don't.  And that's why you are a troll.

[loco_91]

Why don't we offer them a pick ourselves? David Lee, James Young, and their 2017 pick-swap for Lopez. It makes them bad this year, and incentivizes them to get worse next year when they own their own pick. Then they probably stay bad in 2018. If we get two top-5 picks instead of three picks 5-10, that's a huge win, plus we get to gamble on Lopez, which is a risk but still a better bet than free agency. Don't forget that the dude is really talented.

Though of course, Billy King probably hates Ainge now, so there's that.

The Celtics have the right to trade picks in 2017 (like Atlanta had this year), so the Nets have no incentive to get worse. They'll just be bad because they can't help it and because they might be willing to sacrifice a mediocre present for some hope for the future, by trading their best players for some picks.

I was proposing giving them back their 2017 pick (ie relinquishing the right to swap)

[D.o.s.]

I wouldn't count on Brooklyn sucking.  They finished the season strong.  Brook Lopez and Thad Young made a difference.  I think our pick from them will end up in the 12-17 range.

This is exactly what I thought too. Then they traded Plumlee, KG left, Teletovic went down, Johnson got older and had his 5th straight season of decline.

I'm getting pretty bored of this topic, but i'll just briefly touch on this.

- Plumlee was irrelevant in the second half of the season.
- Swapping KG for Thad Young gave them a major positive Jolt
- Teletovic?  Lol
- Johnson... eh... still a solid player
- Lopez was beasting over the past three months of the season.  That makes a difference as a healthy Lopez is a force down low.

Agree to disagree.  Hope you guys end up right.

No you don't.  And that's why you are a troll.

What a meaningful contribution from a very bright poster.

[viulo]

Why don't we offer them a pick ourselves? David Lee, James Young, and their 2017 pick-swap for Lopez. It makes them bad this year, and incentivizes them to get worse next year when they own their own pick. Then they probably stay bad in 2018. If we get two top-5 picks instead of three picks 5-10, that's a huge win, plus we get to gamble on Lopez, which is a risk but still a better bet than free agency. Don't forget that the dude is really talented.

Though of course, Billy King probably hates Ainge now, so there's that.

The Celtics have the right to trade picks in 2017 (like Atlanta had this year), so the Nets have no incentive to get worse. They'll just be bad because they can't help it and because they might be willing to sacrifice a mediocre present for some hope for the future, by trading their best players for some picks.

I was proposing giving them back their 2017 pick (ie relinquishing the right to swap)

Sorry, I misread. Don't know why, I thought you had suggested trading the 2016 one, not the right to swap in 2017. 

[TheSundanceKid]

If the last few years have proven anything, it's that it is really, really hard to be one of the 5 worst teams in the league - even if you wouldn't mind being awful.

Brooklyn will actively try not to be awful, barring a major (and incredibly stupid) shift in franchise strategy.

I just don't see it happening.

The previous 4 years for the 5th worst record:

2015: Orlando 25-57
2014: Celtics 25-57
2013: Pelicans 27-55
2012: Kings 22-44

I wouldn't have considered Orlando a tanking team. I would say we didn't try to tank but ended up overachieving that year. I can't recall the Pelicans and Kings in the years before. I think the 5th worst record is the ceiling for the Brooklyn pick. If they have a particularly good season they could have the 12th worst record (The average over the last 4 years is 35 wins). So I think the range is 5-12 pre lottery night.

I agree with you that it would be implausible for them to finish with the 1st-4th worst records. The chances of getting a pick there depends on lady luck!

[slamtheking]

If the last few years have proven anything, it's that it is really, really hard to be one of the 5 worst teams in the league - even if you wouldn't mind being awful.

Brooklyn will actively try not to be awful, barring a major (and incredibly stupid) shift in franchise strategy.

I just don't see it happening.

The previous 4 years for the 5th worst record:

2015: Orlando 25-57
2014: Celtics 25-57
2013: Pelicans 27-55
2012: Kings 22-44

I wouldn't have considered Orlando a tanking team. I would say we didn't try to tank but ended up overachieving that year. I can't recall the Pelicans and Kings in the years before. I think the 5th worst record is the ceiling for the Brooklyn pick. If they have a particularly good season they could have the 12th worst record (The average over the last 4 years is 35 wins). So I think the range is 5-12 pre lottery night.

I agree with you that it would be implausible for them to finish with the 1st-4th worst records. The chances of getting a pick there depends on lady luck!

thing is, every year there's a team or two that ends up being a lot worse than they planned to be.  I think it's the Nets this year.  mediocre starting line-up when everyone's healthy.  No bench to speak of.  Projected health of the top players for the year is suspect at best. 

Team has no top young prospects nor does it have draft picks in upcoming years to add some young prospects.  Free agency is unlikely to have more than 2-3 good players up for grabs in the next 2-3 years (and that may be overly optimistic since the top players are likely to resign with their current teams) and the lure of a 'big market' doesn't seem to have the appeal that some here think makes a difference to free agents. 

I would be somewhat surprised if the Nets didn't sell off the decent players they have to try to land some draft picks to start a rebuild that the franchise desperately needs.  while they won't reap the rewards of their own picks they would have someone's pick(s) to work with.

[TheSundanceKid]

If the last few years have proven anything, it's that it is really, really hard to be one of the 5 worst teams in the league - even if you wouldn't mind being awful.

Brooklyn will actively try not to be awful, barring a major (and incredibly stupid) shift in franchise strategy.

I just don't see it happening.

The previous 4 years for the 5th worst record:

2015: Orlando 25-57
2014: Celtics 25-57
2013: Pelicans 27-55
2012: Kings 22-44

I wouldn't have considered Orlando a tanking team. I would say we didn't try to tank but ended up overachieving that year. I can't recall the Pelicans and Kings in the years before. I think the 5th worst record is the ceiling for the Brooklyn pick. If they have a particularly good season they could have the 12th worst record (The average over the last 4 years is 35 wins). So I think the range is 5-12 pre lottery night.

I agree with you that it would be implausible for them to finish with the 1st-4th worst records. The chances of getting a pick there depends on lady luck!

thing is, every year there's a team or two that ends up being a lot worse than they planned to be.  I think it's the Nets this year.  mediocre starting line-up when everyone's healthy.  No bench to speak of.  Projected health of the top players for the year is suspect at best. 

Team has no top young prospects nor does it have draft picks in upcoming years to add some young prospects.  Free agency is unlikely to have more than 2-3 good players up for grabs in the next 2-3 years (and that may be overly optimistic since the top players are likely to resign with their current teams) and the lure of a 'big market' doesn't seem to have the appeal that some here think makes a difference to free agents. 

I would be somewhat surprised if the Nets didn't sell off the decent players they have to try to land some draft picks to start a rebuild that the franchise desperately needs.  while they won't reap the rewards of their own picks they would have someone's pick(s) to work with.

If I were the Nets and someone gave me a serviceable player and a good pick for someone like Thad Young, I take it. So you're right. However, even if they trade 1 or 2 big pieces, they'd presumably have a serviceable player coming back in the deal right? Either an expiring vet or a young guy.. and in that case I fully expect the Nets to still be better than Philly in the East and Portland and the Lakers in the West. Teams like Minnesota and Denver could be watered down by the end of the year as well.

Now if there is an injury at almost any position for the Nets then they will go on a losing streak for sure, because as you say their roster is paper thin. But as things stand I won't count on that to boost the pick.

On a side note not directly related to the title; I'm more sceptical of the free agency theory. In the case of the Nets, who literally have no reason not to try and compete in the ext few years, why wouldn't you overpay a few prospects this summer in the hope they mature into a better player than their contract? Sully springs to mind... Why not offer Sully a deal that Boston wouldn't match for 3 years. He gets a big pay day and centre stage, the Nets get an asset that could increase in value whilst not compromising their future. To me it's not the max free agents that would go to Brooklyn, it's the restricted guys that might make the jump.

[Moranis]

If the last few years have proven anything, it's that it is really, really hard to be one of the 5 worst teams in the league - even if you wouldn't mind being awful.

Brooklyn will actively try not to be awful, barring a major (and incredibly stupid) shift in franchise strategy.

I just don't see it happening.

The previous 4 years for the 5th worst record:

2015: Orlando 25-57
2014: Celtics 25-57
2013: Pelicans 27-55
2012: Kings 22-44

I wouldn't have considered Orlando a tanking team. I would say we didn't try to tank but ended up overachieving that year. I can't recall the Pelicans and Kings in the years before. I think the 5th worst record is the ceiling for the Brooklyn pick. If they have a particularly good season they could have the 12th worst record (The average over the last 4 years is 35 wins). So I think the range is 5-12 pre lottery night.

I agree with you that it would be implausible for them to finish with the 1st-4th worst records. The chances of getting a pick there depends on lady luck!

thing is, every year there's a team or two that ends up being a lot worse than they planned to be.  I think it's the Nets this year.  mediocre starting line-up when everyone's healthy.  No bench to speak of.  Projected health of the top players for the year is suspect at best. 

Team has no top young prospects nor does it have draft picks in upcoming years to add some young prospects.  Free agency is unlikely to have more than 2-3 good players up for grabs in the next 2-3 years (and that may be overly optimistic since the top players are likely to resign with their current teams) and the lure of a 'big market' doesn't seem to have the appeal that some here think makes a difference to free agents. 

I would be somewhat surprised if the Nets didn't sell off the decent players they have to try to land some draft picks to start a rebuild that the franchise desperately needs.  while they won't reap the rewards of their own picks they would have someone's pick(s) to work with.

If I were the Nets and someone gave me a serviceable player and a good pick for someone like Thad Young, I take it. So you're right. However, even if they trade 1 or 2 big pieces, they'd presumably have a serviceable player coming back in the deal right? Either an expiring vet or a young guy.. and in that case I fully expect the Nets to still be better than Philly in the East and Portland and the Lakers in the West. Teams like Minnesota and Denver could be watered down by the end of the year as well.

Now if there is an injury at almost any position for the Nets then they will go on a losing streak for sure, because as you say their roster is paper thin. But as things stand I won't count on that to boost the pick.

On a side note not directly related to the title; I'm more sceptical of the free agency theory. In the case of the Nets, who literally have no reason not to try and compete in the ext few years, why wouldn't you overpay a few prospects this summer in the hope they mature into a better player than their contract? Sully springs to mind... Why not offer Sully a deal that Boston wouldn't match for 3 years. He gets a big pay day and centre stage, the Nets get an asset that could increase in value whilst not compromising their future. To me it's not the max free agents that would go to Brooklyn, it's the restricted guys that might make the jump.

I don't know if the Nets will go the restricted route, but I would fully expect them to overpay for mid-tier players for 2 or 3 years.  Guys like JR Smith immediately spring to mind.  You give him a 2 year deal at 10 million per (or something like that) and I think he goes there and while not a world burner will increase their depth and immediate win total without sacrificing long term flexibility.  Players like that is where I see them going next summer.

[Jonny CC]

I wouldn't count on Brooklyn sucking.  They finished the season strong.  Brook Lopez and Thad Young made a difference.  I think our pick from them will end up in the 12-17 range.

This is exactly what I thought too. Then they traded Plumlee, KG left, Teletovic went down, Johnson got older and had his 5th straight season of decline.

I'm getting pretty bored of this topic, but i'll just briefly touch on this.

- Plumlee was irrelevant in the second half of the season.
- Swapping KG for Thad Young gave them a major positive Jolt
- Teletovic?  Lol
- Johnson... eh... still a solid player
- Lopez was beasting over the past three months of the season.  That makes a difference as a healthy Lopez is a force down low.

Agree to disagree.  Hope you guys end up right.

No you don't.  And that's why you are a troll.

I don't always agree with LarBrd33, but he always provides an explanation for his opinions.  Trolls don't do that.