Nets in cost cutting mode

In otherwords, you would either give them Joel or a bunch of crap.

Why not just say you wouldn't make the trade?

 

That would no way come close to getting Devin Harris, much less Harris AND Lee. Harris was an All-Star last season entering the prime of his career.

 

There was only one truly productive player on that list, Rudy. The rest are either WAY unproven (Bayless), inconsistent (Outlaw) or just plain bad (Blake).

New Jersey would be insane to trade Harris for that crap sandwich.

 

Then I wouldn't do it!

 

I'd trade Bayless, Rudy and Batum for Harris. Quality is more important than quantity, and Harris is the best player of the group. Those three Blazers all have question marks if they can fit as long-term starters in our program. They all have some great upside and it would be difficult to see them leave, but that is what KP has to sacrifice to bring in a young all-star.

I would not trade LMA though; if we ship him out we need a clear upgrade in return. I'd include him in a Chris Paul level of trade. In other words he's virtually untouchable.

 

Your a n00b then. You don't trade both Rudy and Batum. That is just stupid.

 

I would. Rudy and Batum are not THAT special.

 

Bayless, Rudy, Claver, Future 1st for Harris

Left w/
Harris/Blake/Mills
Roy/Webster
Batum/Outlaw
LMA/Outlaw/Cunningham
Oden/Joel/Pendergraph

 

Yes, If we want to pry away the best player on another team we have to give up some value. Sending out our 4th and 5th talents is an acceptable cost.

 

Does KP view Batum as a starter?

When he drafted Claver he said he views him as a starter (at SF) down the road.


Bayless/Batum/Outlaw/Blake/Pick is a something I think NJ would take a hard look at.

 

I don't think they would. No one on that list is a proven NBA player, except Blake who has proven he sucks.

Maybe you could swing Rudy, Batum, Blake, and Outlaw. They can then cut Blake and Outlaw and keep Rudy and Batum.

I would pull the trigger on that deal in a second. Rudy will always be second fiddle to Roy and the chances of Batum becoming an all star are very small.

 

why would you keep rudy? he plays the same as roy. you have to let go of things that can't fit. I agree with the rest of your list though.

 

Suprised at the extreme LMA love.

I didn't say I would for certain do LMA for Harris I said I would consider it. Really though Harris might be the 3rd best PG in the league. I would rate Bosh, Gasol, Duncan, Boozer and Millsap possibly and a number of other PF's as better then LMA. I would only rate CP3 and maybe Parker or D. Will as better then Harris.

If you can get it done without LMA great if they asked for LMA you have to consider it if you don't lose any additional talent. Likewise I wouldn't want to give up Batum, Rudy and Bayless but you have to consider it for that kind of upgrade at point. Rudy is superflous with Roy, Bayless would be with Harris so really only Rudy would be lost and for Harris you have to do it.

 

I don't think your summation is accurate at all. LA, Boston, San Antonio, Miami and the previous LA incarnation did not win with depth. In fact, I wouldn't even say Detroit won with "depth." Detroit didn't win with the best 1-2 players, but they absolutely rode their fantastic starting five.

All of those teams won primarily by riding their starters hard. They all had some players off the bench, but not excellent players. They had the types of players you can get with decent drafting at the end of the first round and in the second round and/or wise uses of the MLE or even LLE. None of them were fielding a second unit of players who could start on some teams.

Portland needs some players who won't completely embarrass themselves, but they don't need high-level players (starter-quality or near-starter quality) like Fernandez, Outlaw and Przybilla on the bench. Most of the players that get lionized as "great reserves on championship teams" are actually pretty ordinary players that can be counted on to do a few things when defenses are focused on the superstars. They often then get overpaid or given too large a role on non-descript teams, due to having been shown to "winning role-players," and prove to be nothing special.

So, sure, you need an Eddie House or past-his-prime Jason Williams...you don't need a Rudy Fernandez. A Rudy Fernandez off the bench certainly is nice, but it's less valuable than an improved starting unit.

 

I had similar thoughts about depth. I haven't seen a truly deep team since the late 1980's Pistons that was a really deep team.

Quick question would you do LMA for Harris straight up? Just curious maybe I undervalue LMA but I was not impressed with his playoff performance and I questions his "baller" status. I worry about a Cliff Robinson on steroids effect. Super excellent in the regular season but just kind "Meh" in the playoffs. I'm not saying I despise the guy I just think you have to consider that trade. People laughed me off the board last summer when I suggested LMA for D. Rose I still wonder what that would have been like.

 

I really don't see the Nets getting rid of Harris unless it's for somebody like Rubio. The only possible way I can see players we're prepared to give up (i.e., non big-three) coming close is if we also took on Bobby Simmons.

I actually was thinking what a nice little roster NJ is accumulating. Terrence Williams was one of my top fave players in this draft, and, assuming he's their SF, they're set at all but PF with very nice players on rookie contracts. Oh, and Harris.