ESPN: The Nets are a bigger problem for the NBA than the Sixers

[guava_wrench]

Premise is completely wrong. The Nets are NOT a problem for the NBA.

There is no problem with teams being bad. In every game, someone has to lose. The problem is when they do it on purpose in order to reap benefits. It hurts the integrity of the league. Philly is the first team to really employ a lose on purpose strategy -- which is different from giving up on a season.

The Nets have almost zero motivation to lose. If you are a FA and you want a great 2 or 3 year deal, the Nets are attractive. Winning isn't everything for players who can't command max deals.

[nickagneta]

The entire basis behind the article is wrong. First off, the NBA front office has no problem with franchises going long periods of times at being truly awful. They had no problem with the Wolves being terrible over the last 8-9 years. They have had no problem with Sacramento being awful for over a decade. They had no problem with the Clippers being the worst franchise in professional sports for close to two decades. They will not have a problem with the Nets being bad for the next decade.

The only reason the league had a problem with Philly was due to their blatant attempts at losing games on purpose to secure themselves a shot at the top draft pick for as many years as they have been doing it. Its one thing to be bad through bad luck or incompetent management but you put into question the integrity of the game when you purposely and openly attempt to lose games for the purpose of adding the best teenagers to your team.

The Association won't like having a team in a premier market sucking for a long time but it won't be a problem, as the Philly situation has turned into

Premise is completely wrong. The Nets are NOT a problem for the NBA.

There is no problem with teams being bad. In every game, someone has to lose. The problem is when they do it on purpose in order to reap benefits. It hurts the integrity of the league. Philly is the first team to really employ a lose on purpose strategy -- which is different from giving up on a season.

The Nets have almost zero motivation to lose. If you are a FA and you want a great 2 or 3 year deal, the Nets are attractive. Winning isn't everything for players who can't command max deals.

TP...great minds think alike!!!

[libermaniac]

Can someone answer me this. Why would Brooklyn not feel incentivised to give middle tier free agents max 2-3 year deals just to not suck for that time? Why does it benefit them to not overpay in the next 3 years to ensure talent? Is there a downside? Could it be any worse for them than now? There will be someone out there who will accept the extra money Brooklyn will throw at them. Someone like Jordan Clarkson or Dion Waiters.

In a stupid hypothetical, if Brooklyn offer $40m over 3 years for Clarkson and $45m over 3 years for Waiters, would they be better next year and the year after? Its a gross overpay but as long as they aren't in the luxury tax what do they care?

I'd love for Brooklyn to suck for three years but there are just so many ways they can recover it's too much risk to say they will. There is no other team in the league that has the incentive to just go "screw it, pay them whatever as long as we get better"

They have nothing to lose... that's what makes them dangerous.  Bill Simmons brought this up in a podcast... If a team like Chicago decides they want to move on from the Derrick Rose and his big money over the next two years, Brooklyn should offer Joe Johnson and roll the dice on Rose... there's no reason not to.   

They have no incentive to tank.  They are a good landing spot for the Brandon Bass's of the world... vets who can help win games.  If they don't dump Johnson's contract for some overpaid talent before the deadline, it will be interesting to see what they do with their cap space.

That's why we should offer Lee/Filler/Undo swap of picks in 2017 for Lopez.  This ensures they will be bottom 2 this year.  Plus it gives them a reason to tank next year, so perhaps 2018 will still be a rebuilding year working in their new stud rookie.

[TheSundanceKid]

Can someone answer me this. Why would Brooklyn not feel incentivised to give middle tier free agents max 2-3 year deals just to not suck for that time? Why does it benefit them to not overpay in the next 3 years to ensure talent? Is there a downside? Could it be any worse for them than now? There will be someone out there who will accept the extra money Brooklyn will throw at them. Someone like Jordan Clarkson or Dion Waiters.

In a stupid hypothetical, if Brooklyn offer $40m over 3 years for Clarkson and $45m over 3 years for Waiters, would they be better next year and the year after? Its a gross overpay but as long as they aren't in the luxury tax what do they care?

I'd love for Brooklyn to suck for three years but there are just so many ways they can recover it's too much risk to say they will. There is no other team in the league that has the incentive to just go "screw it, pay them whatever as long as we get better"

Well ya they could easily theoretically pay for one or both of those guys but signing Jordan Clarkson or Dion Waiters to a contract like that will turn them into the Ben Gordon/ Charlie Villanueva Pistons. Perennial bottom feeder with no cap space to match their no assets.

They can spend and still be Garbage. I was defending them before the season, saying they would be more like the 9th-13th pick(Coach and roster who always makes the playoffs, improved chemistry from Deron Williams departure, a nice collection of underrated young talent that could be on the verge of taking the next step ) but this team has surpassed my expectations on their ability to lose NBA games now frankly I have no idea how they can realistically turn it around.

Yeah like I say I was using a stupid hypothetical scenario but the point is it could happen. Someone will be lured by money. I'm not saying they can be a playoff team but they could get to the back of the lottery which is a stark difference from some people opinion that it'll be top 3 every year

[tazzmaniac]

My biggest worry---is the OTHER teams that will inevitably decide to start Tanking this season after the all-star break....gonna happen--and we might not get a top 5 pick after all.

The nice thing about this season is that there's a logjam at the bottom of both conferences which will keep lots of teams in contention for the 8th seed on both side.

Gobert is back now so I think Utah will start to pull away from the 9th team in the west.  In the East, the Wiz, Knicks and us should remain in the playoff hunt but I could see the Hornets dropping out.  They've lost their last 7 games and they're now 2.5 games back of 8th. 

[danglertx]

The thing that really works in our favor that nobody would have expected is that there really aren't bad teams in the East like there are in the West.

The Nets aren't going to catch the Bucks.  The Sixers have a better chance of passing the Nets than the Nets have of passing the Bucks, Charlotte, or Wizards.  So when the 76ers play the Nets, those teams are only guaranteed to win those 4(? I think in conference teams play 4 times but it might be more).

Out in the West, the bad teams are LA, Minnesota, New Orleans, Phoenix, and Denver.  Those teams have a built in 20 wins between them.  Surely they will split most of those games making it really tough for the Nets to even beat out LA who are just a game back of them.

[Vermont Green]

So the point of the article is comparing how bad the Nets are (currently and in terms of assets for rebuilding) and how bad the Sixers are.  Both are bad currently but both have different types of "assets" that could help them.

Philly has some promising young players and some very near term valuable draft picks.  This is not going to turn them around in the near term, but the cupboard is certainly not bare.

The Nets could change their tenor very quickly with some success with FAs this off season.  It would not take all that much along with Lopez and Young, for them to be a whole lot better next season.  I think part of the key is to attract a "name" GM and coach which is something I think they will do.  Then, don't try to do too much too fast.  Get some middle to upper middle tier FAs to sign so that they can take a meaningful step forward next season.  That success wil allow them to attract even more FAs.

Two different types of assets, two different paths and time frames to possible success.

Either path could fail.  Young players and draft picks offer no certainty of success but Philly has so many chances for one of the young players or picks to really emerge that their chances of success increases (more rolls of the dice).

For the Nets for course, a huge factor is Lopez's health.  If he goes down, it significantly reduces their chance of being good anytime soon.  They have far more eggs in one 7', historically injury prone basket but it is not all that much of a stretch to see them being much better next season.

[LarBrd33]

Premise is completely wrong. The Nets are NOT a problem for the NBA.

There is no problem with teams being bad. In every game, someone has to lose. The problem is when they do it on purpose in order to reap benefits. It hurts the integrity of the league. Philly is the first team to really employ a lose on purpose strategy -- which is different from giving up on a season.

The Nets have almost zero motivation to lose. If you are a FA and you want a great 2 or 3 year deal, the Nets are attractive. Winning isn't everything for players who can't command max deals.

There's a few reason why Philly is a problem.  One is, agents aren't pleased with them not making any effort to sign their clients when they can clearly use them... so you got them complaining.   Then you have teams who feel like Philly is misusing the lotto by intentionally putting themselves in position to lose so they can get all the best prospects... a lot of teams were angry that they snagged Embiid... they were angry that they snagged Okafor.  These were highly desirable assets and it was further magnified by Philly's unwillingness to discuss these players in trade negotiations even though they clearly need to trade a couple at some point.   So there's bad blood from GM's over that.  If Philly was wiffing on the draft, there would be less angst from opposing GMs over it.    The other big point of frustration is that Philly doesn't make an effort to reach the salary floor and are not a draw when they play on the road ... so Owners feel like they are a financial drain on the league.    So Philly is ruffling feathers all over the place.  It's part of the reason they made a big deal about bringing in Colangelo, a move at least partially intended to placate the naysayers by giving the impression that they have changed their course of action.  Ultimately, they are still going to tank and still deal with this mess in the Summer as intended.

Long-term, Philly is fine.   Nets are going to have a tough time putting together a contender, but I agree... I don't see them as being much of an issue for the league in the same way that Philly has been.  Agents are going to be fine with them... since they will gladly spend money to fill out that roster.  GM's will fine with them... since they were clearly be willing to discuss moves.  Owners will be fine with them... since as long as Brooklyn fields a mildly competitive team and has a draw or two, they shouldn't be too much of a sour note on ticket sales when they come to town.   

Brooklyn should consider doing what Simmons suggested in his podcast... bring in a guy like D-Rose for Johnson's expiring.   People will show up to see D-Rose even if he's a shadow of himself... and there's a chance he'd pay dividends for them.

[GC003332]

Premise is completely wrong. The Nets are NOT a problem for the NBA.

There is no problem with teams being bad. In every game, someone has to lose. The problem is when they do it on purpose in order to reap benefits. It hurts the integrity of the league. Philly is the first team to really employ a lose on purpose strategy -- which is different from giving up on a season.

The Nets have almost zero motivation to lose. If you are a FA and you want a great 2 or 3 year deal, the Nets are attractive. Winning isn't everything for players who can't command max deals.

There's a few reason why Philly is a problem.  One is, agents aren't pleased with them not making any effort to sign their clients when they can clearly use them... so you got them complaining.   Then you have teams who feel like Philly is misusing the lotto by intentionally putting themselves in position to lose so they can get all the best prospects... a lot of teams were angry that they snagged Embiid... they were angry that they snagged Okafor.  These were highly desirable assets and it was further magnified by Philly's unwillingness to discuss these players in trade negotiations even though they clearly need to trade a couple at some point.   So there's bad blood from GM's over that.  If Philly was wiffing on the draft, there would be less angst from opposing GMs over it.    The other big point of frustration is that Philly doesn't make an effort to reach the salary floor and are not a draw when they play on the road ... so Owners feel like they are a financial drain on the league.    So Philly is ruffling feathers all over the place.  It's part of the reason they made a big deal about bringing in Colangelo, a move at least partially intended to placate the naysayers by giving the impression that they have changed their course of action.  Ultimately, they are still going to tank and still deal with this mess in the Summer as intended.

Long-term, Philly is fine.   Nets are going to have a tough time putting together a contender, but I agree... I don't see them as being much of an issue for the league in the same way that Philly has been.  Agents are going to be fine with them... since they will gladly spend money to fill out that roster.  GM's will fine with them... since they were clearly be willing to discuss moves.  Owners will be fine with them... since as long as Brooklyn fields a mildly competitive team and has a draw or two, they shouldn't be too much of a sour note on ticket sales when they come to town.   

Brooklyn should consider doing what Simmons suggested in his podcast... bring in a guy like D-Rose for Johnson's expiring.   People will show up to see D-Rose even if he's a shadow of himself... and there's a chance he'd pay dividends for them.

Serious question LarBrd33, with the Sixers cap room this coming off season and their young guys combined with an almost guaranteed top 4 pick and possibly the Lakers pick, who do you think will win more games next season, the Sixers or Nets?

[JBcat]

The Eastern conference is improving.

Even with solid free agent signings name me 6 teams the Nets would leapfrog to make the playoffs in 2017.  I just don't see it.  Maybe they won't be high end lottery in 2017 but they will at least be in the lottery again.

Almost every team will have significant cap space next year.   Too many options to spread the good free agents across the league.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Pelton ignores the fact that Brooklyn is one of the biggest media markets in the world. Max money, plus living in NYC, will make the Nets players in free agency.

Pelton ignores the fact that they have an All-Star caliber center under contract.  Honestly it would not take that much to make them a 40-win team.  Look at how Danny did that with the Celtics.

They can find a couple guys in Free Agency who would love to get overpaid in NYC.

I agree and don't forget the owner and his appetite for women and lavish things.

NY is NY you can't recreate it anywhere and you have to respect it.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Hopefully, BKN's worst case scenario comes to fruition allowing the Celtics to reap the fruits.

Worst case scenario is Ben Simmons, Josh Jackson and DeAndre Ayton?  I like these drafts coming up, there's Jayson Tatum, Ingram, Thon Maker, De'Aaron Fox, Harry Giles, Michael Porter, Wendell Carter, Dennis Smith Jr., Isaiah Hartenstein, Markelle Fultz.... these are some really legit prospects.

TP for bringing up some prospects.

Personally, I think both draftexpress and nbadraft.net are doing another hatchet ranking the picks 1 year out or more. 2017 draft on both their sites is bad and hopefully enough people will remember when they switch the picks again, sometime next year.

2017: Dennis Smith Jr should be top 3, even with the injury. Thon Maker should not be in the late 20's. Bam Bam may be a great pick for us in 2017, hopefully we trade to get a pick or consolidate picks, but Bam Bam will be a good NBA player but college may limit him and his abilities; so I could see him staying ranked 9th(he is better than that)

2018: Ayton would be a great get for us. He has improved since this summer and has a better deeper shot, better handles. Michael Porter is doing well, I am not as confident in him as Ayton or other guys, but he is jumping better.

[guava_wrench]

The entire basis behind the article is wrong. First off, the NBA front office has no problem with franchises going long periods of times at being truly awful. They had no problem with the Wolves being terrible over the last 8-9 years. They have had no problem with Sacramento being awful for over a decade. They had no problem with the Clippers being the worst franchise in professional sports for close to two decades. They will not have a problem with the Nets being bad for the next decade.

The only reason the league had a problem with Philly was due to their blatant attempts at losing games on purpose to secure themselves a shot at the top draft pick for as many years as they have been doing it. Its one thing to be bad through bad luck or incompetent management but you put into question the integrity of the game when you purposely and openly attempt to lose games for the purpose of adding the best teenagers to your team.

The Association won't like having a team in a premier market sucking for a long time but it won't be a problem, as the Philly situation has turned into

Premise is completely wrong. The Nets are NOT a problem for the NBA.

There is no problem with teams being bad. In every game, someone has to lose. The problem is when they do it on purpose in order to reap benefits. It hurts the integrity of the league. Philly is the first team to really employ a lose on purpose strategy -- which is different from giving up on a season.

The Nets have almost zero motivation to lose. If you are a FA and you want a great 2 or 3 year deal, the Nets are attractive. Winning isn't everything for players who can't command max deals.

TP...great minds think alike!!!

Ha! Looks like you beat me to it!

[LarBrd33]

Premise is completely wrong. The Nets are NOT a problem for the NBA.

There is no problem with teams being bad. In every game, someone has to lose. The problem is when they do it on purpose in order to reap benefits. It hurts the integrity of the league. Philly is the first team to really employ a lose on purpose strategy -- which is different from giving up on a season.

The Nets have almost zero motivation to lose. If you are a FA and you want a great 2 or 3 year deal, the Nets are attractive. Winning isn't everything for players who can't command max deals.

There's a few reason why Philly is a problem.  One is, agents aren't pleased with them not making any effort to sign their clients when they can clearly use them... so you got them complaining.   Then you have teams who feel like Philly is misusing the lotto by intentionally putting themselves in position to lose so they can get all the best prospects... a lot of teams were angry that they snagged Embiid... they were angry that they snagged Okafor.  These were highly desirable assets and it was further magnified by Philly's unwillingness to discuss these players in trade negotiations even though they clearly need to trade a couple at some point.   So there's bad blood from GM's over that.  If Philly was wiffing on the draft, there would be less angst from opposing GMs over it.    The other big point of frustration is that Philly doesn't make an effort to reach the salary floor and are not a draw when they play on the road ... so Owners feel like they are a financial drain on the league.    So Philly is ruffling feathers all over the place.  It's part of the reason they made a big deal about bringing in Colangelo, a move at least partially intended to placate the naysayers by giving the impression that they have changed their course of action.  Ultimately, they are still going to tank and still deal with this mess in the Summer as intended.

Long-term, Philly is fine.   Nets are going to have a tough time putting together a contender, but I agree... I don't see them as being much of an issue for the league in the same way that Philly has been.  Agents are going to be fine with them... since they will gladly spend money to fill out that roster.  GM's will fine with them... since they were clearly be willing to discuss moves.  Owners will be fine with them... since as long as Brooklyn fields a mildly competitive team and has a draw or two, they shouldn't be too much of a sour note on ticket sales when they come to town.   

Brooklyn should consider doing what Simmons suggested in his podcast... bring in a guy like D-Rose for Johnson's expiring.   People will show up to see D-Rose even if he's a shadow of himself... and there's a chance he'd pay dividends for them.

Serious question LarBrd33, with the Sixers cap room this coming off season and their young guys combined with an almost guaranteed top 4 pick and possibly the Lakers pick, who do you think will win more games next season, the Sixers or Nets?

Who knows.  There's so many things at play.  It really depends what moves both teams make.  I'd say the Sixers can make a pretty immediate improvement this Summer regardless of free agency.  Brooklyn is almost entirely dependent on signing players.

[trickybilly]

Premise is completely wrong. The Nets are NOT a problem for the NBA.

There is no problem with teams being bad. In every game, someone has to lose. The problem is when they do it on purpose in order to reap benefits. It hurts the integrity of the league. Philly is the first team to really employ a lose on purpose strategy -- which is different from giving up on a season.

The Nets have almost zero motivation to lose. If you are a FA and you want a great 2 or 3 year deal, the Nets are attractive. Winning isn't everything for players who can't command max deals.

There's a few reason why Philly is a problem.  One is, agents aren't pleased with them not making any effort to sign their clients when they can clearly use them... so you got them complaining.   Then you have teams who feel like Philly is misusing the lotto by intentionally putting themselves in position to lose so they can get all the best prospects... a lot of teams were angry that they snagged Embiid... they were angry that they snagged Okafor.  These were highly desirable assets and it was further magnified by Philly's unwillingness to discuss these players in trade negotiations even though they clearly need to trade a couple at some point.   So there's bad blood from GM's over that.  If Philly was wiffing on the draft, there would be less angst from opposing GMs over it.    The other big point of frustration is that Philly doesn't make an effort to reach the salary floor and are not a draw when they play on the road ... so Owners feel like they are a financial drain on the league.    So Philly is ruffling feathers all over the place.  It's part of the reason they made a big deal about bringing in Colangelo, a move at least partially intended to placate the naysayers by giving the impression that they have changed their course of action.  Ultimately, they are still going to tank and still deal with this mess in the Summer as intended.

Long-term, Philly is fine.   Nets are going to have a tough time putting together a contender, but I agree... I don't see them as being much of an issue for the league in the same way that Philly has been.  Agents are going to be fine with them... since they will gladly spend money to fill out that roster.  GM's will fine with them... since they were clearly be willing to discuss moves.  Owners will be fine with them... since as long as Brooklyn fields a mildly competitive team and has a draw or two, they shouldn't be too much of a sour note on ticket sales when they come to town.   

Brooklyn should consider doing what Simmons suggested in his podcast... bring in a guy like D-Rose for Johnson's expiring.   People will show up to see D-Rose even if he's a shadow of himself... and there's a chance he'd pay dividends for them.

Serious question LarBrd33, with the Sixers cap room this coming off season and their young guys combined with an almost guaranteed top 4 pick and possibly the Lakers pick, who do you think will win more games next season, the Sixers or Nets?

Who knows.  There's so many things at play.  It really depends what moves both teams make.  I'd say the Sixers can make a pretty immediate improvement this Summer regardless of free agency.  Brooklyn is almost entirely dependent on signing players.

Have you got any specific FAs in mind that you think will consider BKN this summer?

Maybe Conley gets a big deal??