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

[LarBrd33]

Comparing Brooklyn to philly is not even remotely close. 

Philly has one of the best collections of assets in the entire league. From top to bottom, they have more value than our entire team. It would be exceptionally easy for a competent GM to turn Philly's assets into a decent team.

Brooklyn, on the other hand, has a single all-star talent with a history of injuries, a couple decent young guys, cap space and an intriguing location.  I still think they can take on bad contracts and add some vets and be mildly competitive enough to spoil our pick... I still think they could throw max money at players to join Lopez, but their path to relevance seems much steeper than Philly.

How can you be serious when you say stuff like this?

Cuz it's true.  I adamantly believe that Ainge would gladly swap our players/picks for PHilly's players/picks if given the opportunity. 

Brooklyn on the other hand... they really need to lean on their cap space and the allure of being the face of an exciting location.   I'm not ruling it out... You can't rule out a New York team with cap space and they already have one star in place.

That's the point of the article... Philly is fine heading forward.  Brooklyn is a potentially rough situation if they can't land free agents.  This quote is spot-on:

As long as Philadelphia sits below Brooklyn in the Atlantic Division standings, few observers will realize the magnitude of the problem for the Nets. But with the 76ers poised to convert the draft picks and young prospects Hinkie accumulated into players who can help them win now, that surely won't last. And soon it will be obvious that Brooklyn presents a bigger long-term issue for the league.

I will say this... if in-fact Brooklyn strikes out in free agency, continues to struggle and their 2017 and 2018 picks indeed project to be high lotto, that absolutely impacts my opinion of Philly assets vs Boston assets.   I'm still operating under the assumption Brooklyn will find a way to be a mediocre team.

[celticsclay]

Comparing Brooklyn to philly is not even remotely close. 

Philly has one of the best collections of assets in the entire league. From top to bottom, they have more value than our entire team. It would be exceptionally easy for a competent GM to turn Philly's assets into a decent team.

Brooklyn, on the other hand, has a single all-star talent with a history of injuries, a couple decent young guys, cap space and an intriguing location.  I still think they can take on bad contracts and add some vets and be mildly competitive enough to spoil our pick... I still think they could throw max money at players to join Lopez, but their path to relevance seems much steeper than Philly.

How can you be serious when you say stuff like this?

Cuz it's true.  I adamantly believe that Ainge would gladly swap our players/picks for PHilly's players/picks if given the opportunity. 

Brooklyn on the other hand... they really need to lean on their cap space and the allure of being the face of an exciting location.   I'm not ruling it out... You can't rule out a New York team with cap space and they already have one star in place.

That's the point of the article... Philly is fine heading forward.  Brooklyn is a potentially rough situation if they can't land free agents.  This quote is spot-on:

As long as Philadelphia sits below Brooklyn in the Atlantic Division standings, few observers will realize the magnitude of the problem for the Nets. But with the 76ers poised to convert the draft picks and young prospects Hinkie accumulated into players who can help them win now, that surely won't last. And soon it will be obvious that Brooklyn presents a bigger long-term issue for the league.

This is perfect example of derailing a conversation. The article is about how the Nets are in serious trouble as an organization and have the most bleak future in the league. The 76ers are used as a footnote because they are taking away from negative attention the Nets actually deserve. The thread and topic have absolutely nothing to do with whether the Celtics would trade assets with the 76ers and now the thread is in obvious danger of turning into a free for all chaos "debate" about philadelphia and their directions instead of a discussion of a national writer pointing out the really bleak future of the Nets.

[LarBrd33]

Comparing Brooklyn to philly is not even remotely close. 

Philly has one of the best collections of assets in the entire league. From top to bottom, they have more value than our entire team. It would be exceptionally easy for a competent GM to turn Philly's assets into a decent team.

Brooklyn, on the other hand, has a single all-star talent with a history of injuries, a couple decent young guys, cap space and an intriguing location.  I still think they can take on bad contracts and add some vets and be mildly competitive enough to spoil our pick... I still think they could throw max money at players to join Lopez, but their path to relevance seems much steeper than Philly.

How can you be serious when you say stuff like this?

Cuz it's true.  I adamantly believe that Ainge would gladly swap our players/picks for PHilly's players/picks if given the opportunity. 

Brooklyn on the other hand... they really need to lean on their cap space and the allure of being the face of an exciting location.   I'm not ruling it out... You can't rule out a New York team with cap space and they already have one star in place.

That's the point of the article... Philly is fine heading forward.  Brooklyn is a potentially rough situation if they can't land free agents.  This quote is spot-on:

As long as Philadelphia sits below Brooklyn in the Atlantic Division standings, few observers will realize the magnitude of the problem for the Nets. But with the 76ers poised to convert the draft picks and young prospects Hinkie accumulated into players who can help them win now, that surely won't last. And soon it will be obvious that Brooklyn presents a bigger long-term issue for the league.

This is perfect example of derailing a conversation. The article is about how the Nets are in serious trouble as an organization and have the most bleak future in the league.

The article is LITERALLY about how Brooklyn's future is potentially worse than the much talked about Philly future.   You are in-fact derailing this conversation to accuse me of talking about Philly in a thread that is literally about Philly.   

The title of the article is literally "The Nets are a bigger problem for the NBA than the Sixers".  The entire thesis of the article is that people are way too focused on how bad Philly is when Brooklyn is far worse off.   The entire close of the article reiterates that Philly is in fine shape compared to Brooklyn.   

I agree with the article.

If you don't want to see an opinion backing up the point of the article, find another thread.

[mctyson]

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.

[mctyson]

Comparing Brooklyn to philly is not even remotely close. 

Philly has one of the best collections of assets in the entire league. 

I still think you are seriously overrating how much teams would give up for players like Noel and Embiid

[celticsclay]

Comparing Brooklyn to philly is not even remotely close. 

Philly has one of the best collections of assets in the entire league. From top to bottom, they have more value than our entire team. It would be exceptionally easy for a competent GM to turn Philly's assets into a decent team.

Brooklyn, on the other hand, has a single all-star talent with a history of injuries, a couple decent young guys, cap space and an intriguing location.  I still think they can take on bad contracts and add some vets and be mildly competitive enough to spoil our pick... I still think they could throw max money at players to join Lopez, but their path to relevance seems much steeper than Philly.

How can you be serious when you say stuff like this?

Cuz it's true.  I adamantly believe that Ainge would gladly swap our players/picks for PHilly's players/picks if given the opportunity. 

Brooklyn on the other hand... they really need to lean on their cap space and the allure of being the face of an exciting location.   I'm not ruling it out... You can't rule out a New York team with cap space and they already have one star in place.

That's the point of the article... Philly is fine heading forward.  Brooklyn is a potentially rough situation if they can't land free agents.  This quote is spot-on:

As long as Philadelphia sits below Brooklyn in the Atlantic Division standings, few observers will realize the magnitude of the problem for the Nets. But with the 76ers poised to convert the draft picks and young prospects Hinkie accumulated into players who can help them win now, that surely won't last. And soon it will be obvious that Brooklyn presents a bigger long-term issue for the league.

This is perfect example of derailing a conversation. The article is about how the Nets are in serious trouble as an organization and have the most bleak future in the league.

The article is LITERALLY about how Brooklyn's future is potentially worse than the much talked about Philly future.   You are in-fact derailing this conversation to accuse me of talking about Philly in a thread that is literally about Philly.   

The title of the article is literally "The Nets are a bigger problem for the NBA than the Sixers". 

If you don't want to see an opinion backing up the point of the article, find another thread.

Yes the article uses the 76ers as a point of a comparison for the Nets and says the Nets should be getting much more negative attention. I completely agree with that and think it is an interesting point. However, the article has nothing or says nothing directly comparing the Celtics and the 76ers and whether Danny Ainge would trade all of our assets for theirs. Do you understand how that is a different (and very tired) topic?

[LarBrd33]

Comparing Brooklyn to philly is not even remotely close. 

Philly has one of the best collections of assets in the entire league. 

I still think you are seriously overrating how much teams would give up for players like Noel and Embiid

I'll send you a PM with my logic

[LarBrd33]

Comparing Brooklyn to philly is not even remotely close. 

Philly has one of the best collections of assets in the entire league. From top to bottom, they have more value than our entire team. It would be exceptionally easy for a competent GM to turn Philly's assets into a decent team.

Brooklyn, on the other hand, has a single all-star talent with a history of injuries, a couple decent young guys, cap space and an intriguing location.  I still think they can take on bad contracts and add some vets and be mildly competitive enough to spoil our pick... I still think they could throw max money at players to join Lopez, but their path to relevance seems much steeper than Philly.

How can you be serious when you say stuff like this?

Cuz it's true.  I adamantly believe that Ainge would gladly swap our players/picks for PHilly's players/picks if given the opportunity. 

Brooklyn on the other hand... they really need to lean on their cap space and the allure of being the face of an exciting location.   I'm not ruling it out... You can't rule out a New York team with cap space and they already have one star in place.

That's the point of the article... Philly is fine heading forward.  Brooklyn is a potentially rough situation if they can't land free agents.  This quote is spot-on:

As long as Philadelphia sits below Brooklyn in the Atlantic Division standings, few observers will realize the magnitude of the problem for the Nets. But with the 76ers poised to convert the draft picks and young prospects Hinkie accumulated into players who can help them win now, that surely won't last. And soon it will be obvious that Brooklyn presents a bigger long-term issue for the league.

This is perfect example of derailing a conversation. The article is about how the Nets are in serious trouble as an organization and have the most bleak future in the league.

The article is LITERALLY about how Brooklyn's future is potentially worse than the much talked about Philly future.   You are in-fact derailing this conversation to accuse me of talking about Philly in a thread that is literally about Philly.   

The title of the article is literally "The Nets are a bigger problem for the NBA than the Sixers". 

If you don't want to see an opinion backing up the point of the article, find another thread.

Yes the article uses the 76ers as a point of a comparison for the Nets and says the Nets should be getting much more negative attention. I completely agree with that and think it is an interesting point. However, the article has nothing or says nothing directly comparing the Celtics and the 76ers and whether Danny Ainge would trade all of our assets for theirs. Do you understand how that is a different (and very tired) topic?

Cool... so rank Brooklyn's assets and I'll compare them to Phillys.

[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"

[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

[celticsclay]

Comparing Brooklyn to philly is not even remotely close. 

Philly has one of the best collections of assets in the entire league. From top to bottom, they have more value than our entire team. It would be exceptionally easy for a competent GM to turn Philly's assets into a decent team.

Brooklyn, on the other hand, has a single all-star talent with a history of injuries, a couple decent young guys, cap space and an intriguing location.  I still think they can take on bad contracts and add some vets and be mildly competitive enough to spoil our pick... I still think they could throw max money at players to join Lopez, but their path to relevance seems much steeper than Philly.

How can you be serious when you say stuff like this?

Cuz it's true.  I adamantly believe that Ainge would gladly swap our players/picks for PHilly's players/picks if given the opportunity. 

Brooklyn on the other hand... they really need to lean on their cap space and the allure of being the face of an exciting location.   I'm not ruling it out... You can't rule out a New York team with cap space and they already have one star in place.

That's the point of the article... Philly is fine heading forward.  Brooklyn is a potentially rough situation if they can't land free agents.  This quote is spot-on:

As long as Philadelphia sits below Brooklyn in the Atlantic Division standings, few observers will realize the magnitude of the problem for the Nets. But with the 76ers poised to convert the draft picks and young prospects Hinkie accumulated into players who can help them win now, that surely won't last. And soon it will be obvious that Brooklyn presents a bigger long-term issue for the league.

This is perfect example of derailing a conversation. The article is about how the Nets are in serious trouble as an organization and have the most bleak future in the league.

The article is LITERALLY about how Brooklyn's future is potentially worse than the much talked about Philly future.   You are in-fact derailing this conversation to accuse me of talking about Philly in a thread that is literally about Philly.   

The title of the article is literally "The Nets are a bigger problem for the NBA than the Sixers". 

If you don't want to see an opinion backing up the point of the article, find another thread.

Yes the article uses the 76ers as a point of a comparison for the Nets and says the Nets should be getting much more negative attention. I completely agree with that and think it is an interesting point. However, the article has nothing or says nothing directly comparing the Celtics and the 76ers and whether Danny Ainge would trade all of our assets for theirs. Do you understand how that is a different (and very tired) topic?

Cool... so rank Brooklyn's assets and I'll compare them to Phillys.

I am not sure if you pretending to misunderstand me or what. We both agree with the article, the Nets are in a worse position than the 76ers. I think we both agree that the 76ers have much better assets in Noel, Okafor, a top 3 pick than Lopez and Thad Young and no future firsts.
That is relevant discussion for this thread.

Sidetracking the debate into celtics versus 76ers and whether ainge would trade his assets or players for 76ers assets is what is off topic (and is particularly off course because this is a real hot button topic that is already debated on here just about every day).

You get it?

[MBunge]

That's the point of the article... Philly is fine heading forward.

I'm pretty sure that's NOT the point of the article.  Being better off than the Nets, which most would agree is true, does not mean that Philly is "fine."

Mike

[Csfan1984]

I don't care about either team so doesn't matter which is worse in anyone's opinion.

[LarBrd33]

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.

[Smartacus]

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.