What if Brooklyn signs Durant this Summer.

[Granath]

Lewis was 27 years old in the summer of 2007.  He was a free agent, but he easily could have been kept around.  Lewis was the oldest person in the rotation aside from Allen.  Let's not pretend that Seattle was a bunch of old men, it wasn't.  It was a team that won 31 games in the tough western conference with its two best players each missing at least a quarter of the season.  Adding Durant to that team easily could have pushed Seattle to the mid-40 win range in Durant's rookie season.  The similarities are far greater than you are willing to admit. 

If Boston elects to build around the Brooklyn pick, Boston will let go a significant portion of the roster and will allow all those recent draft picks time to grow (Young, Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, and even guys like Smart and KO who are in the rotation but not being fully utilized), while simultaneously "tanking" for its own draft picks.

*sigh*

You don't read posts before replying, do you? As I mentioned above, Lewis and KD play the same position thus the rest of your paragraph is rendered moot even if Lewis wanted to stay in Seattle (hint: he didn't).

As for your second paragraph, you can believe whatever you want to believe. But what you're spouting is incredibly unlikely and that's being kind.

[celticsclay]

Lewis was 27 years old in the summer of 2007.  He was a free agent, but he easily could have been kept around.  Lewis was the oldest person in the rotation aside from Allen.  Let's not pretend that Seattle was a bunch of old men, it wasn't.  It was a team that won 31 games in the tough western conference with its two best players each missing at least a quarter of the season.  Adding Durant to that team easily could have pushed Seattle to the mid-40 win range in Durant's rookie season.  The similarities are far greater than you are willing to admit. 

If Boston elects to build around the Brooklyn pick, Boston will let go a significant portion of the roster and will allow all those recent draft picks time to grow (Young, Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, and even guys like Smart and KO who are in the rotation but not being fully utilized), while simultaneously "tanking" for its own draft picks.

*sigh*

You don't read posts before replying, do you? As I mentioned above, Lewis and KD play the same position thus the rest of your paragraph is rendered moot even if Lewis wanted to stay in Seattle (hint: he didn't).

As for your second paragraph, you can believe whatever you want to believe. But what you're spouting is incredibly unlikely and that's being kind.

Yea this is a bizarre comparison. It start with the whole premise of ignoring that the team was moving (so it starts off as apples to oranges). Then throw in the fact that none of the subsequent points seem related to the Celtics current situation at all and the comparison gets even more strange. Moranis surely there has to be a better comparison example than this...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2007.html

I mean from that list of 16 players that played for the team you realize Lewis, Ridnour, Wilcox, Allen and Collison, and watson were the only players to play any sort of meaningful moments in the NBA after that season?

That is 6 players (with 4 of them being limited role career backups). You are comparing this to the future potential careers for

Crowder
Bradley
Sullinger
Smart
Olynik
IT
Amir Johnson
Evan Turner
Zeller

 To say nothing of our prospects
Young
Rozier
Mickey
Hunter
(of who we can really conservatively expect two of them to be in the NBA 5 years from now)

This is more than twice the talent level and number of NBA players!

 

[Moranis]

Lewis was 27 years old in the summer of 2007.  He was a free agent, but he easily could have been kept around.  Lewis was the oldest person in the rotation aside from Allen.  Let's not pretend that Seattle was a bunch of old men, it wasn't.  It was a team that won 31 games in the tough western conference with its two best players each missing at least a quarter of the season.  Adding Durant to that team easily could have pushed Seattle to the mid-40 win range in Durant's rookie season.  The similarities are far greater than you are willing to admit. 

If Boston elects to build around the Brooklyn pick, Boston will let go a significant portion of the roster and will allow all those recent draft picks time to grow (Young, Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, and even guys like Smart and KO who are in the rotation but not being fully utilized), while simultaneously "tanking" for its own draft picks.

*sigh*

You don't read posts before replying, do you? As I mentioned above, Lewis and KD play the same position thus the rest of your paragraph is rendered moot even if Lewis wanted to stay in Seattle (hint: he didn't).

As for your second paragraph, you can believe whatever you want to believe. But what you're spouting is incredibly unlikely and that's being kind.

Lewis was a PF every season after that one, Durant is not and never has been.

[celticsclay]

Lewis was 27 years old in the summer of 2007.  He was a free agent, but he easily could have been kept around.  Lewis was the oldest person in the rotation aside from Allen.  Let's not pretend that Seattle was a bunch of old men, it wasn't.  It was a team that won 31 games in the tough western conference with its two best players each missing at least a quarter of the season.  Adding Durant to that team easily could have pushed Seattle to the mid-40 win range in Durant's rookie season.  The similarities are far greater than you are willing to admit. 

If Boston elects to build around the Brooklyn pick, Boston will let go a significant portion of the roster and will allow all those recent draft picks time to grow (Young, Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, and even guys like Smart and KO who are in the rotation but not being fully utilized), while simultaneously "tanking" for its own draft picks.

*sigh*

You don't read posts before replying, do you? As I mentioned above, Lewis and KD play the same position thus the rest of your paragraph is rendered moot even if Lewis wanted to stay in Seattle (hint: he didn't).

As for your second paragraph, you can believe whatever you want to believe. But what you're spouting is incredibly unlikely and that's being kind.

Lewis was a PF every season after that one, Durant is not and never has been.

This really is such a lazy comparison.

[Granath]

Lewis was a PF every season after that one, Durant is not and never has been.

What position did Lewis play while at Seattle?

SF. Thanks for playing, please try again.

(And as far as playing as a PF every season after that, go look at his minutes. They were generally still at SF in Orlando, Washington and Miami in his most common lineups.)

[celticsclay]

Unfortunately this comparison was made without a whole lot of thought put into it

it was:

1) A team that was in the process of relocating to another city and had no ties to their existing players with the new fan base
2) A team with very few players that even stayed in the league for a few seasons
3) A team that was in the process of being sold and benefitted from being stripped of long term salary obligations

I don't really think you could think of a more different situation than what the Celtics have right now. Not sure why it was brought up to begin with other than that it is loosely tied to durant.

[colincb]

Unfortunately this comparison was made without a whole lot of thought put into it

it was:

1) A team that was in the process of relocating to another city and had no ties to their existing players with the new fan base
2) A team with very few players that even stayed in the league for a few seasons
3) A team that was in the process of being sold and benefitted from being stripped of long term salary obligations

I don't really think you could think of a more different situation than what the Celtics have right now. Not sure why it was brought up to begin with other than that it is loosely tied to durant.

Might as well add that the Sonics were already bad and were but a 2 man team with Ray Allen feared to be effectively done before long and Rashad Lewis wanting a big contract and no part of rebuilding. Also had a new GM who wanted to clean house.

I see no comparison to our situation and the odds that we do what the OP wants seem to be far less than 50/50.

[Moranis]

Unfortunately this comparison was made without a whole lot of thought put into it

it was:

1) A team that was in the process of relocating to another city and had no ties to their existing players with the new fan base
2) A team with very few players that even stayed in the league for a few seasons
3) A team that was in the process of being sold and benefitted from being stripped of long term salary obligations

I don't really think you could think of a more different situation than what the Celtics have right now. Not sure why it was brought up to begin with other than that it is loosely tied to durant.

There was plenty of thought into it.  The reason I used them is because they are a recent example of team that had some "stars" but also struck it right in the lottery.  You see most teams that end up in the top few picks of a draft are bad without established players in their prime.  They certainly aren't mid-level teams like the Celtics.

Let's just say Boston gets Simmons.  It is reasonable to believe Simmons won't be a franchise level player for at least 3 seasons (and that is likely best case).  While waiting for Mr. Simmons to take that leap, Boston without much change will float around 45-50 wins, maybe win a playoff series, but certainly won't be a contender.  3 seasons from now, Boston will have no other franchise level players unless Smart takes a jump, which will only happen if Smart gets significant playing time.  How is Smart going to get significant playing time with Thomas and Bradley ahead of him?  Two guys that will be pushing 30 when Simmons is ready to be the franchise player.  The team will consist of a bunch of older role players or guys on rookie deals that have barely played.  It will take a lucky break in free agency to find a player to pair with Simmons. 

Or Boston could just go all in around Simmons, play Smart, Rozier, Hunter, Young, Mickey, plus whomever else is drafted this summer big minutes.  Let all those young guys with potential grow together and likely be a bad team, but one that will then very likely get significantly more talented players from the draft increasing the odds of landing a great player, plus acquiring more assets or young guys for what is acquired in the trades of Bradley, Thomas, Sullinger, and perhaps even Crowder or KO (though I think they could be solid pieces to hang on to). 

[MBunge]

Unfortunately this comparison was made without a whole lot of thought put into it

it was:

1) A team that was in the process of relocating to another city and had no ties to their existing players with the new fan base
2) A team with very few players that even stayed in the league for a few seasons
3) A team that was in the process of being sold and benefitted from being stripped of long term salary obligations

I don't really think you could think of a more different situation than what the Celtics have right now. Not sure why it was brought up to begin with other than that it is loosely tied to durant.

There was plenty of thought into it.  The reason I used them is because they are a recent example of team that had some "stars" but also struck it right in the lottery.  You see most teams that end up in the top few picks of a draft are bad without established players in their prime.  They certainly aren't mid-level teams like the Celtics.

Let's just say Boston gets Simmons.  It is reasonable to believe Simmons won't be a franchise level player for at least 3 seasons (and that is likely best case).  While waiting for Mr. Simmons to take that leap, Boston without much change will float around 45-50 wins, maybe win a playoff series, but certainly won't be a contender.   

You're arguing that adding Simmons, who every pundit in the world is calling a true franchise player, will have zero impact on the fortunes of the Celtics.

And you seem to be arguing that a 45 win team that adds Simmons AND has lots of cap room will be unable to attract any legitimate stars.

Mike

[Granath]

There was plenty of thought into it.  The reason I used them is because they are a recent example of team that had some "stars" but also struck it right in the lottery.

This Celtics team doesn't have stars. It's a talented, hard working group of slightly above average players who fit the system. It's far deeper (and better) than that Seattle team.

You see most teams that end up in the top few picks of a draft are bad without established players in their prime.  They certainly aren't mid-level teams like the Celtics.

And neither were the Sonics.

Let's just say Boston gets Simmons.  It is reasonable to believe Simmons won't be a franchise level player for at least 3 seasons (and that is likely best case).  While waiting for Mr. Simmons to take that leap, Boston without much change will float around 45-50 wins, maybe win a playoff series, but certainly won't be a contender.  3 seasons from now, Boston will have no other franchise level players unless Smart takes a jump, which will only happen if Smart gets significant playing time.  How is Smart going to get significant playing time with Thomas and Bradley ahead of him?  Two guys that will be pushing 30 when Simmons is ready to be the franchise player.  The team will consist of a bunch of older role players or guys on rookie deals that have barely played.  It will take a lucky break in free agency to find a player to pair with Simmons. 

Who is to say you will need other franchise players? San Antonio has won multiple championships with one franchise player (Duncan), one excellent PG and a collection of above average role players (Ginobili is the best of that bunch and still has never been a 20ppg scorer).

Smart is averaging 27 mpg already. Do you think he's hurting for playing time?

As far as being older, the only current contributor who will be pushing 30 would be IT. Jae's 25 and locked up for 4 more years. Bradley is 25. Olynyk is 24. Smart is 21. The Cs have 7 other draft picks beyond the Nets' pick this year, a likely top 10 selection in 2017 and 2018 and enough cap space to do whatever they need to do. It's unreasonable to claim they'll be "stuck" at 45 to 50 wins with those kind of assets. Nor would the team be a collection of older, over the hill players.

As far as freeing up playing time, that might mean trading IT a couple of years from now. Or letting Bradley walk in FA. If there's one thing I know about Stevens is that he'll get players the time they deserve. If and when RJ, Rozier, Young, etc. deserve playing time, they'll see the court more often. And we all know Danny won't hesitate to pull the trigger on trading someone. If they feel that a Smart/RJ backcourt can work, Danny wouldn't blink if he had the chance to trade IT and Bradley for future first rounders.

Or Boston could just go all in around Simmons, play Smart, Rozier, Hunter, Young, Mickey, plus whomever else is drafted this summer big minutes.  Let all those young guys with potential grow together and likely be a bad team, but one that will then very likely get significantly more talented players from the draft increasing the odds of landing a great player, plus acquiring more assets or young guys for what is acquired in the trades of Bradley, Thomas, Sullinger, and perhaps even Crowder or KO (though I think they could be solid pieces to hang on to).

Yeah, and they can create a culture of losing. They can lessen their chances with free agents. They can alienate Brad Stevens who may not want to put up with a reset of the team. They can lose money and fans. And they can hope the ping-pong balls go their way. What a wonderful strategy.

Or they can use the Nets' picks wisely, make Boston an attractive (winning) destination for free agents, let the team grow and improve as they mature, make smart trades as players earn playing time, let a stud draftee learn from true professionals in a winning environment, continue to make the playoffs and position themselves (like SA) into a model franchise. Gee, that sounds much more pleasant and there's substantially less luck involved.

I swear there are some fans here at CB who truly fear or hate winning. They're only happy if the team sucks and they get to anticipate the ping-pong balls falling their way.

[Moranis]

Why do you think the Nets picks in 2017 and 2018 are going to be top 10 picks?  That seems like a very strange position to take for a team that will have cap space and absolutely no incentive to be bad.  The Nets, if necessary, are absolutely going to overpay for free agents on shorter contracts to try and make the playoffs.  Even without real stars, just adding a quality second tier PG and some quality depth will greatly increase the Nets win percentage.  I mean the Nets were a shallow team before losing RHJ and Jack to injuries and one that was often in games with their starters and lost as a result of a terribly thin bench (which is worse now).  They will get those two guys back, plush McCullough, and will most certainly add players in free agency (even if they are just players like Lopez and Afflalo that the Knicks added).  I think it is far more likely the Nets win 45 games than 25 games next year and the year after that.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Why do you think the Nets picks in 2017 and 2018 are going to be top 10 picks?  That seems like a very strange position to take for a team that will have cap space and absolutely no incentive to be bad.  The Nets, if necessary, are absolutely going to overpay for free agents on shorter contracts to try and make the playoffs.  Even without real stars, just adding a quality second tier PG and some quality depth will greatly increase the Nets win percentage.  I mean the Nets were a shallow team before losing RHJ and Jack to injuries and one that was often in games with their starters and lost as a result of a terribly thin bench (which is worse now).  They will get those two guys back, plush McCullough, and will most certainly add players in free agency (even if they are just players like Lopez and Afflalo that the Knicks added).  I think it is far more likely the Nets win 45 games than 25 games next year and the year after that.

I agree with you. I think this year's Brooklyn pick will be the best pick. The Russian Billionaire will buy his way to mediocrity.

However, if they are only able to overpay for average players (which is likely), they are still banking on Lopez's health to get them to the 7-8 seed. If he goes down, those will be top 10 and maybe top 5 picks.

Also, it seems like their biggest need is a good point guard. If Conley goes somewhere else, who do they get? Brandon Jennings would take a near-max contract to play in Brooklyn, but I'm not sure he moves the needle for them to be a playoff team in the revitalized East. Jeff Teague will be available next summer (assuming the Hawks move to Schroeder), but he is really not any better than Jennings. Derrick Rose? Ty Lawson? None of those guys move the needle too much. The one point guard I am worried about is Clarkson, but I really don't think the Lakers let him escape.

Those picks could break any number of ways, but they will still probably be top 18 picks. If things break perfect, they could be two more top 10 picks. If not, I'm still happy that we might get a top 5 pick in 2016.

[Eddie20]

Why do you think the Nets picks in 2017 and 2018 are going to be top 10 picks?  That seems like a very strange position to take for a team that will have cap space and absolutely no incentive to be bad.  The Nets, if necessary, are absolutely going to overpay for free agents on shorter contracts to try and make the playoffs.  Even without real stars, just adding a quality second tier PG and some quality depth will greatly increase the Nets win percentage.  I mean the Nets were a shallow team before losing RHJ and Jack to injuries and one that was often in games with their starters and lost as a result of a terribly thin bench (which is worse now).  They will get those two guys back, plush McCullough, and will most certainly add players in free agency (even if they are just players like Lopez and Afflalo that the Knicks added).  I think it is far more likely the Nets win 45 games than 25 games next year and the year after that.

Can someone explain why some here consider Brooklyn as some major free agent destination? Kidd left for a reason, Hollins was fired, King demoted, and they have no draft picks. The last time I ever heard of a player having the Nets on their "short list" of teams was Howard and Deron Williams years ago. Not even a peep since. In fact, not only do you have a coach bolting to star studded Milwaukee, but you have a player like Pierce leaving for less money to sign with Washington.

Yes, they have money, but so does everyone else. I can easily see them becoming like the Pistons and badly overpaying for lesser talent, in order to have someone join that cesspool. So who will be their Charlie V and Ben Gordon? Does it really matter? They're still going to be a lottery team, especially as the overall young eastern conference continues to improve, and will be banking on Lopez's feet for two more years of wear and tear in oder to NOT give us a (another?) top 3 pick.

[Granath]

Why do you think the Nets picks in 2017 and 2018 are going to be top 10 picks?  That seems like a very strange position to take for a team that will have cap space and absolutely no incentive to be bad.  The Nets, if necessary, are absolutely going to overpay for free agents on shorter contracts to try and make the playoffs.  Even without real stars, just adding a quality second tier PG and some quality depth will greatly increase the Nets win percentage.  I mean the Nets were a shallow team before losing RHJ and Jack to injuries and one that was often in games with their starters and lost as a result of a terribly thin bench (which is worse now).  They will get those two guys back, plush McCullough, and will most certainly add players in free agency (even if they are just players like Lopez and Afflalo that the Knicks added).  I think it is far more likely the Nets win 45 games than 25 games next year and the year after that.

First, let's address the free agent possibilities. There are 15 to 20 teams next year with huge amounts of cap space. The list of impact free agents isn't that large (http://hoopshype.com/2016/01/16/nba-free-agency-2016-the-top-players/) while there's a huge amount of money chasing those free agents (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/10/16/9529643/nba-free-agency-2016-salary-cap-space-billions). We're talking over $1B chasing only a handful of players. That's a lot of money for very few players. If everyone can and will offer big contracts, what do the Nets have to offer? Sure, they might get a guy like Mike Conley but it's not all that likely because most players don't want to play in a high-tax, cold-weather climate for a losing team with few prospects. It's far more likely that at most they may pick up some depth. I would not be at all surprised if they only acquire 3rd tier FAs. 

Secondly, their best players haven't been injured this year and are at their very peaks. There's no young talent to improve (unlike the Celtics) from year to year. RHJ is perhaps the only one and he was averaging 5 ppg before going down to injury. So it's quite unlikely there's going to be any internal improvement and it's far more possible that injuries/age start to take their toll. In short, it's actually a much more likely scenario that the existing players gets worse and not better over the next two years.

Thirdly, looking at straight up talent most of the Eastern Conference is far superior to the Nets. It's not like there's a massive amount of talent on that team right now. Don't talk about guys like Jack having major value to the team. They sucked before he went down. They suck now. Most of the league has passed them by in terms of talent.

Fourth, the Nets have almost zero tradable assets in which to improve. The only guys who are really valuable are Lopez and Young and if those guys go it's much more likely it's for future picks. There's simply not another decent, tradable asset on that team. Danny was able to move players with value for picks and now he'll move picks for players. The Nets have a stockpile of neither.

Could the Nets strike it rich in FA? Yes, but it's highly unlikely. Could the few good players for the Nets stay healthy in 2017 and 2018 despite the minutes and age taking a toll on them? Yes, but it's unlikely. Could someone like RHJ or Shane Larkin become breakout solid players in the coming years? Yes, but it's unlikely. It would take all 3 for the Nets to improve 20 games. Now you're talking about some majorly long odds.

So where's a 20 game improvement going to come from? Remember that there's always going to be 3 or so teams that win fewer than 30 games in any given conference. That's actually a pretty consistent thing. Look at the teams right now - which 3 teams are more likely to win under 30 games while the Nets win 45 in 2017 and 2018? Philly...and who else?

As usual, you overestimate the Nets' chances to greatly improve. I would not be shocked at all if all THREE picks end up in the top 5. That's how bare the cupboard has become for the Nets. GM is out and you'll find that it's probably the most poorly positioned team in the NBA for the next 3 to 5 years.

[oldtype]

I agree that the 17 and 18 picks won't be as good.

There's no reason to be coming up with all of these absurd hypotheticals to make that point.