BigSoxFan said:Agree with Grin. The Nets are basically the Knicks now. They have zero appreciating assets. Lopez may be Yao Ming II, Deron and Joe are on the back 9, KG and Pierce should be back in the clubhouse, and the rest of the team is simply mediocre or worse. They mortgaged their future for a round 1 win in a historically-bad conference.
PedroKsBambino said:
Agree at the macro level---too much money for too much age, too little production, and too little flexibility. They do have a noticeably higher talent level than Knicks, and they don't have their only significant asset looking at FA right now. Money-wise, I doubt either owner cares, but I'd say Nets are in an even worse place financially in terms of the commitments and quality of those commitments.
If Lopez is healthy (which there can be no question is a huge 'if') where would you put them in East next year---4th perhaps? Maybe 3rd best-case?
Grin&MartyBarret said:
They have to make this core work, and given what Williams has become, that's pretty unlikely.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
And when he allowed Jason Kidd to coach the team.
It's great that he got them to the playoffs but when push came to shove - like the last minutes of the last two games - the Nets didn't have any plays and couldn't execute. I know Joe Johnson is their best player, but going to isos against LB can't be a winning move. I don't know the egos involved, but you have to give to PP being guarded by Ray Allen more than once, don't you?
Sad, Nets were up 8 with 4 minutes to play last night and was tied with the ball with two minutes to go the night before. And from those points, they scored a grand total of two buckets (5 points) - both of which, it should be noted, required offensive rebounds.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
... Shaun Livingston's going to be a popular free agent. As repeat tax payers they wont have an avenue to add players outside of a trade. They're looking at Williams, Johnson, ???, Teletovic, and Lopez as a starting 5, with Plumlee and Thornton off the bench. That may be a 4 seed in the East, but there are teams that will improve next year. Atlanta will get Horford back. Cleveland has cap space to address their hole at the 3 and won't be led by Mike Brown. Detroit apparently will be looking to move Monroe and Van Gundy will be able to get a lot more out of the Drummond/Smith combo, Toronto's young players are improving, Rose will be back in Chicago, and Washington has some space if they want to add some pieces. My guess is they lose a road playoff series as a 6-8 seed.
What is the best case scenario for the Nets (and thus, the worst case scenario for the Celtics)?HomeRunBaker said:This season couldn't have been scripted any better for Boston and the 3 future unprotected firsts of theirs we own (one being a swap option). KG is done, Lopez injured again, Pierce on the first flight to Clipperland, and Iso Joe quickly approaching 40,000 NBA minutes.
Makes Ainge's trade all that much better looking.
Eddie Jurak said:What is the best case scenario for the Nets (and thus, the worst case scenario for the Celtics)?
moly99 said:One of the nice things is that Brooklyn's 2016-2018 seasons will be impacted by not having cheap young players.
2010: (Derrick Favors; 2013/14 PER 19.01) Traded to Utah in the Deron Williams trade.
2011: (Enes Kanter; 2013/14 PER 15.70) Traded to Utah in the Deron Williams trade
2012: (Damian Lillard; 2013/14 PER 18.69) Traded to Portland in the Gerald Wallace trade
2013: Mason Plumlee
2014: traded to Celtics in Garnett & Pierce trade
2015: Hawks have swap rights from Joe Johnson trade
2016: traded to Celtics in Garnett & Pierce trade
2017: Celtics have swap rights from Garnett & Pierce trade
2018: traded to Celtics in Garnett & Pierce trade
It really is dumbfounding when you look at that list.
Which is why Kidd is crazy like a fox to shoot his way out of Brooklyn and move to Milwaukee.jon abbey said:The future for the Nets does not look too bright, it might be a good time to get out.
$1B? He paid $225m iirc which included Barclays and the Clippers alone just sold for $2B!wutang112878 said:I really dont think he is smart or experienced enough to realize that. He really should have seen this coming when he let King go all in and give them a window of like 2 years, that was a giant mistake and I have to believe that he figured he could spend his way out of that problem. Intelligent owners just dont do what he did unless their team is really on the cusp.
However, if he is offered something that would represent a $1B profit over what he bought it for, then he is out of there regardless of what their future looks like.
Those Forbes numbers are both ultra conservative and old. I believe they had the Bucks around $350m and they sold for almost a 60% premium. I also don't feel the future television dollars are factored at all in those valuations plus the Nets deal include real estate assets with the package.wutang112878 said:That $2B number is really unprecedented. No NBA franchise has sold for anything close to that. I know LA is big market, but Washington, Sacramento, GoldenState and Milwaukee recently all sold and I think they were in the $450M - $550M range. Ego and carelessness are what drove that $2B price. In their most recent valuation Forbes had the Knicks $1.4B, Lakers $1.35B and Bulls $1.0B at the top, I think its really wishful thinking that this Clips price is going to be used as the new 'comp' for future franchise sales. Just look at Prokhorov, he was probably the most suspect new owner in the past 10 years but the NBA was desperate to sell the Nets at a reasonable price so they went to desperate measures. I just cant believe that in just a few short years suddenly there are like a handful of billionaires in the world now wants to own an NBA franchise which would justify a Nets $2B valuation.
Devizier said:Brooklyn, being in New York, will carry a premium valuation similar to what the Clippers had. I would imagine that Chicago carries a similar premium.
I think the Clippers had a bonus built in due to the incompetence of the Lakers (could they displace them as LA's top team? Unlikely, but more possible now than ever before).
Kidd was pretty bad as a coach and they gave away their picks, mostly to us. Makes perfect to trade him for picks, even for 2nds, even if one of them is late (2019). Next year's pick should be in the top 40.soxhop411 said:
Adrian Wojnarowski @WojYahooNBA 3m
As for U-Turn back to Nets? Likely too late. "Russians are done with Kidd," one source tells Yahoo. Belief is that King is more forgiving.
this sounds bad without context
HomeRunBaker said:Those Forbes numbers are both ultra conservative and old. I believe they had the Bucks around $350m and they sold for almost a 60% premium. I also don't feel the future television dollars are factored at all in those valuations plus the Nets deal include real estate assets with the package.
Someone want to opine about this?@WojYahooNBA
As part of Kidd deal, Brooklyn and Milwaukee will not be allowed to make a trade with each other during 2014-'15 season, source tells Yahoo.
Thanks for posting Rudy!Rudy Pemberton said:This is a worthwhile read about the Nets- and might shed some light on why the Nets sold for so little.
http://grantland.com/features/the-nets-nba-economics/
Just to pile on, as well as to introduce analytics where none were needed, Hollins rates as one of the better head coaches we've seen recently.Sox and Rocks said:The Nets should thank their lucky Stars that Jason Kidd went all Jason Kidd on them.
Hollins is an upgrade.
PedroKsBambino said:No idea what the methodology is there, but Jim O'Brien scoring pretty high and Jason Kidd near the bottom certainly passes the 'quick eye test' for me!
This stat is by one of the two the main creators of RPM/xRAPM. Essentially, it works the same way as RPM/xRAPM, it just treats the coach as a 6th man on the court at all times in constructing its regression. Because the coach never leaves the game however, there's some projection done through standard player aging curves. Part of the reason Brooks rates so damn well is because his young players have far exceeded normal development, and his players who have played for other coaches have not played as well, and he's reaping the rewards of that.PedroKsBambino said:No idea what the methodology is there, but Jim O'Brien scoring pretty high and Jason Kidd near the bottom certainly passes the 'quick eye test' for me!
Yeah, with this method I'm not able to say whether a player gets better because of coaching or because of the player development staff. With Brooks we can only tell when he leaves OKC and doesn't take his staff with him. In a fantasy world with more data I could throw assistant coaches and player development coaches into the regression.
I think in OKC's case it's a mix of many things: Management is bringing in good players, player development coaches do a good job, and the coach does a good job.
Brooks would not have this high of an estimate if players had not performed significantly better playing for him, compared to how they performed with other coaches (including but not limited to Collison, Durant, Perkins, Fisher). I'm guessing a large chunk of Brook's rating comes to Collison's development. Collison has had decent +/- numbers before Brooks got there, but then the +/- numbers just took off, plus Collison was already 28 when Brooks started coaching in OKC
PedroKsBambino said:No idea what the methodology is there, but Jim O'Brien scoring pretty high and Jason Kidd near the bottom certainly passes the 'quick eye test' for me!
I DIDN'T MEAN IT AL SERIOUSLYThat's why I'm rooting for a broken leg for Al Horford. Nothing personal, but that top ten pick belongs to the Celtics, damnit.
OK, so he actually sold 49% in 2017. Partial credit?In what year does Prokhorov sell out (to ski with models full-time? http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mikhail-prokhorov-partying-in-the-alps-with-models-tell-me-more/ ) or get thrown in jail by Putin and leave this mess to someon else?
I'm guessing 2016.