Hello everyone, welcome to the New Jersey Nets debate. We'll continue the first round, with the following members, "Legacy", "MrJ", and "Ma3oxuct". This debate will begin once the first reply is submitted and will last approximately 48 hours. Here is a couple of rules to remember: 1. No one other than the people participating in this debate, can post in this thread. 2. Form your own opinion about the topic your discussing, don't steal material. 3. Keep it clean and intelligent. And the question is: In your opinion, what has been the Nets worst move as a franchise, in the past 10 years?
IMO, the worst move by the Nets in the past 10 years is not re-signing Kenyon Martin after losing in the eastern conference semi-finals against the Detroit Pistons. The Nets had made the NBA finals in the two previous years before, but the eastern conference had gotten much stronger and the Nets had to face the tough Pistons. The lost in 7 games, which also says alot. They played well through out the whole series and Kenyon Martin played great in game 7 with Jason Kidd not scoring a single point in that game with a sore knee. The reason that Kenyon Martin was traded was because the new owner at the time, Bruce Ratner wasn't willing to pay for K-Mart's contract despite coming off a great season, but playing in only 70 games. He also averaged 20 points, 11 rebounds, and a block and a half in those playoffs while shooting 53 percent from the field. Let's face it, Jason Kidd made Kenyon Martin into a beast. Unfortunately for him, now he is only an injury prone star. The Nets had a combined record of 148-98 with Kenyon Martin on the team. Not only did he score well in the post, he did have a solid jump shot, and was a phenomenal defender in the post or the perimeter. Playing with Jason Kidd made him into a superstar and one of the best power forwards at that time. He was a for not to be recking with. He has everything you need for in a big man. He was also a pretty good free throw shooter for a power forward averaging 65 percent from the charity stripe. I think that if the Nets had kept Kenyon Martin right now and still somehow got Vince Carter, this team would have won championships by this time or atleast be top contenders. Kenyon Martin should have stayed on the Nets and who knows, he would probably still be the beast he was from that time, even now. Especially with more playmakers on the team such as Vince Carter and Marcus Williams. The worst move the Nets have made in the past 10 years is not signing the former number one pick, Kenyon Martin.
After the New Jersey Nets failed to re-sign Kenyon Martin, it was clear that they were looking to rebuild. During that same offseason of 2004, they also traded Kerry Kittles, let go of Lucious Harris and Rodney Rogers, who played key roles for the Nets. While rebuilding is fine, and almost a necessary procedure for every team stuck at the “end of the road”, the signing of Richard Jefferson contradicts all of their previous moves. Rod Thorn signed Richard Jefferson signed to a 6-year, $78 million contract. Don’t get me wrong, Jefferson is definitely a good player and came off a solid season averaging about 18/6, but why give Jefferson such a huge contract, with no competent teammates to play with? Rebuilding is a process which takes several years and re-signing Jefferson to such a lucrative deal severely hinders that process. Soon after the trade the Nets acquired Vince Carter, who of course was an all-star to team up with Jefferson and Kidd. But the trio is very much overrated. All healthy, the “Big Three” has gone out in the second round in five and six games respectively. Now rumors are surfacing about the Nets wanting to trade Jefferson, but are having a difficult time (surprise, surprise). With four years and nearly $55 million remaining on his salary, Jefferson is nearly untradable, especially after playing in only 55 games the past season. In fact, the Blazers and Nets were discussions about a trade swapping Randolph for Jefferson but ultimately the Blazers thought the Channing Frye, after a huge sophomore slump, would be better for the team than Jefferson. Not re-signing Kenyon Martin was the Nets’ best move. He would have completely destroyed the Nets and any hopes they would have of contending. You put up some pretty impressive stats in favor of Kenyon Martin, but I think the biggest one you forgot to put was games played. Since being traded from New Jersey he’s played in 65, 70, 56, and 2 games the past four seasons. He clearly hasn’t shown the ability to stay healthy and after signing a 7-year $93 million contract, the Nets would be in a terrible state. Not only his he ridiculously overpaid, but I doubt he would have let Krstic develop into the player he is today. Not re-signing an injury-prone Kenyon Martin (who is 30 in December) to that huge contract (a whopping four years left) also gave the Nets the draft pick to select Marcus Williams, the Nets point guard for the future, who is currently under the tutelage of the league’s best point guard, Jason Kidd. You also said a Martin/Carter team could win a championship. While this team looks decent on paper, let’s not forget how injury prone Martin is and the only reason why the Raptors dealt Carter to the Nets was because of the draft picks they got for dealing Kenyon Martin.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Rod Thorn signed Richard Jefferson signed to a 6-year, $78 million contract. Don’t get me wrong, Jefferson is definitely a good player and came off a solid season averaging about 18/6, but why give Jefferson such a huge contract, with no competent teammates to play with? Rebuilding is a process which takes several years and re-signing Jefferson to such a lucrative deal severely hinders that process.</div> They were looking to re-build at that time, which is why they re-signed the 24 year old Jefferson at the time. He could have been an all star and possibly even a superstar by now, if Vince Carter wasn't on the team. Remember the beginning of the the 04-05 regular season? Carter wasn't on the team, Kidd wasn't playing cause he was injured, and Krstic was unknown at the time. Jefferson had the whole team to himself, I belive his numbers during the time was somewhere around, 23 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists a game. There were even some games were he had 40 points and nearly a triple double. He was having the best start of his career and could have been an all-star if it weren't for rupturing a ligament in his wrist. He had to miss 49 games due to that, but still made it to the first round series against the Miami Heat. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Soon after the trade the Nets acquired Vince Carter, who of course was an all-star to team up with Jefferson and Kidd. But the trio is very much overrated. All healthy, the “Big Three” has gone out in the second round in five and six games respectively.</div> Exactly. This proves that you can not win a championship without a good front line. If Kenyon Martin was still on the team, it would have been a different story. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In fact, the Blazers and Nets were discussions about a trade swapping Randolph for Jefferson but ultimately the Blazers thought the Channing Frye, after a huge sophomore slump, would be better for the team than Jefferson.</div> The Blazers are in a re-building process right now, why would they want another small forward on the team when they have Brandon Roy who could fill that position easily.. Are they gonna use Jefferson as a back-up? No, which is why they wanted a younger power forward than Zach Randolph, which is the reason why they acquired Channing Frye. Sure he may be one year younger than Randolph, but they want a player who would hit his prime during the same time as everyone else on the team, plus Randolph's off-court issues were also a concern. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Not re-signing Kenyon Martin was the Nets’ best move. He would have completely destroyed the Nets and any hopes they would have of contending. You put up some pretty impressive stats in favor of Kenyon Martin, but I think the biggest one you forgot to put was games played. Since being traded from New Jersey he’s played in 65, 70, 56, and 2 games the past four seasons.</div> The season he played two games in were with the Denver Nuggets, not the Nets. If he has re-signed with the Nets, would he have gotten the same injury, we don't know, but I certainly doubt it. I think if Vince Carter could stay healthy on this team, why can't Kenyon Martin? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Not only his he ridiculously overpaid, but I doubt he would have let Krstic develop into the player he is today. Not re-signing an injury-prone Kenyon Martin (who is 30 in December) to that huge contract (a whopping four years left) also gave the Nets the draft pick to select Marcus Williams, the Nets point guard for the future, who is currently under the tutelage of the league’s best point guard, Jason Kidd.</div> First off, him and Krstic play two completely different positions. The Nets needed help at the center spot, and I doubt that Jason Collins was gonna be the replacement for that spot. Krstic and Martin play different roles also. K-Mart is a post player and defensive specialist, while Nenad is a shooting center. As for Marcus Williams, I doubt he will be anything like Jason Kidd, if he's anything it will be a Steve Francis or Stephon Marbury with the shoot first mentality.
The worst move by the Nets in the last 10 years was the acquisition of Dikembe Mutombo. On August 6, 2002, the Nets traded Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCulloch to the 76ers for Mutombo. The Nets made this trade because they lost to the Lakers in the 2002 finals. The Lakers had non-other than the mighty Shaq. Mutombo was a supurb defensive center. Nets the Nets' management thought Mutombo was the piece needed to stop Shaq in the finals in 2003. There were a lot of reasons why this was a very bad trade. Without hindsight, Mutombo was was clearly an aging player. Furthermore, he never showed the actual ability to defend Shaq (the #1 reason the Nets wanted him in the first place). The Nets were giving up a Van Horn in his prime (they could have traded him for someone better in the future, like a draft pick) and MacCulloch, an improving, young center, who played fairly well for the Nets off the bench. What happen when Mutombo played for the Nets? He made the Nets worse off. He was no longer the shot-blocker he once was. Kidd at one point that season said that the team was worse off defensively because the team let players blow by because they felt comfortable with a "shot blocker" behind them. It does not take a basketball expert to realize the Mutombo could never have been the shot blocker the Nets were looking for because he was way past his prime (36-37 years old at the time). To pour more salt on the wound, Mutombo bitched and moaned when he was benched after coming back from a wrist injury. The Nets were playing well as a team. Team chemistry was phenomenal with Collins at center, yet Mutombo cared about nothing but himself. They were surging in the playoffs, winning 12 consecutive games, after Mutombo cleaned up his act. Even more salt on the wound, the Nets ended up having to buy Mutombo out for $36 million dollars at season's end. Here is why no other move is as bad as the Mutombo trade. Take Legacy's stand point for example: <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Legacy:</div><div class="quote_post">IMO, the worst move by the Nets in the past 10 years is not re-signing Kenyon Martin after losing in the eastern conference semi-finals against the Detroit Pistons. ... Unfortunately for him, now he is only an injury prone star. ... I think that if the Nets had kept Kenyon Martin right now and still somehow got Vince Carter, this team would have won championships by this time or atleast be top contenders. ... </div> First of all, remember what was happening with Martin's knees during that season. It could be forseen that he was going to be an injured player for at least several seasons to come. Second of all, there is absolutely no way in hell that the Nets would have been able to get Carter without the first round draft picks that they got from Denver for Martin. I repeat: If Martin were resigned, Carter would not be here because the Nets would NOT have had the draft picks to acquire him. Toronto was interested mostly in the draft picks. Williams and Mourning were simply traded to get the contracts to match up in the deal, so that it would abide by NBA rules. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">[Rod Thorn signed Richard Jefferson signed to a 6-year, $78 million contract. Don’t get me wrong, Jefferson is definitely a good player and came off a solid season averaging about 18/6, but why give Jefferson such a huge contract, with no competent teammates to play with? Rebuilding is a process which takes several years and re-signing Jefferson to such a lucrative deal severely hinders that process. ... Now rumors are surfacing about the Nets wanting to trade Jefferson, but are having a difficult time (surprise, surprise). ... </div> Jefferson quite simply is the Nets' francise player. There are very good reasons for this: 1) He is still young and improving. 2) He is an excellent defender. 3) He does not have any "mental" issues in the sense that he does not get into trouble, has a great work ethic, respects the coach and teammates, etc. 4) He has shown to be able to lead the team (the stretch of games when Martin and Kidd sat out with Knee injuries. 5) He proven to be the perfect "chemistry" player. He plays well with Kidd and Carter. He can take everything upon himself when needed, etc. And about the Nets wanting to trade Jefferson: I challenge to you give any other evidence other than just rumors. Rumors more often than not are false. I guarantee you that the Nets are NOT try to trade Jefferson (unless they can get something better, like Garnett). One way or another, it is impossible for the Jefferson re-signing to be worse than the Mutombo trade. The Nets could have had a far stronger team for the season in which they lost in 6 games to the Spurs in the finals. If you remember why the Nets could not defeat the Spur, they had difficulty scoring. Who would have helped alleviate that? Van Horn! The Jefferson resigning was not even close to as bad as the Mutombo trade because Jefferson is clearly a piece of the championship puzzle and will remain such a piece until he exits his prime. Mutombo was a washed-up piece of garbage rather than a championship piece. On top of that the Nets can get something out of Jefferson in the long run (you can always dump an expiring contract on a rebuilding team for some goodies; happens almost every season). What did the Nets get out of Mutombo? NOTHING. In fact, they bought out his contract for $36 MILLION after his only season with the Nets. Such a gesture proves even more how much the Nets wanted to get rid of him. So in summary, Legacy: I challenge you refute MrJ and my arguements against you position. MrJ: I challenge you to explain how the Jefferson re-signing is worse than the Mutombo trade.
<div class="quote_poster">Ma3oxuct Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The worst move by the Nets in the last 10 years was the acquisition of Dikembe Mutombo. On August 6, 2002, the Nets traded Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCulloch to the 76ers for Mutombo. The Nets made this trade because they lost to the Lakers in the 2002 finals. The Lakers had non-other than the mighty Shaq. Mutombo was a supurb defensive center. Nets the Nets' management thought Mutombo was the piece needed to stop Shaq in the finals in 2003.</div> While I agree that it was a bad trade, and move, it was still not as bad as not re-signing Kenyon Martin. I think that if Mutombo didn't get injured, he couldn't have stopped Shaq, but he could have slowed him down. Before the year we traded for him, he played in 80 games hit double figures in scoring and in rebounding while nearly averaging 3 blocks a game. He could have been the missing piece we needed to slow down Shaq, unfortunately for him, once he arrived here he got injured which stopped him from playing in 72 games. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">There were a lot of reasons why this was a very bad trade. Without hindsight, Mutombo was was clearly an aging player. Furthermore, he never showed the actual ability to defend Shaq (the #1 reason the Nets wanted him in the first place). The Nets were giving up a Van Horn in his prime (they could have traded him for someone better in the future, like a draft pick) and MacCulloch, an improving, young center, who played fairly well for the Nets off the bench. </div> MacCulloch was good for us back then, but look at what happened to him when he went to Philly. Where is he now? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">First of all, remember what was happening with Martin's knees during that season. It could be forseen that he was going to be an injured player for at least several seasons to come.</div> Not with a proper trainer. I know that Bruce Ratner and Rod Thorn would have hired the right trainer to get Kenyon to work on improving his knees and durability. Once again look at Vince Carter, before he was in New Jersey, he was extremely injury prone and had bad knees also which he got several surgeries on. What makes you think that same can't happen to Kenyon Martin. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Second of all, there is absolutely no way in hell that the Nets would have been able to get Carter without the first round draft picks that they got from Denver for Martin. I repeat: If Martin were resigned, Carter would not be here because the Nets would have have had the draft picks to acquire him. Toronto was interested mostly in the draft picks. Williams and Morning were simply traded to get the contracts to match up in the deal, so that it would abide by NBA rules. </div> That is another reason why I think not re-signing K-Mart and trading him was a bad move. With those draft picks who did we get, Marcus Williams who isn't going to be anywhere as good as Jason Kidd, but maybe a poor man's Stephon Marbury and Antonie Wright. The guy went 15th in the draft, but what has he done so far in his NBA career that could make him be remembered in a positive way? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And about the Nets wanting to trade Jefferson: I challenge to you give any other evidence other than just rumors. Rumors more often than not are false. I guarantee you that the Nets are NOT try to trade Jefferson (unless they can get something better, like Garnett).</div> Well actually we were trying to get Zach Randolph according to Rod Thorn. He wanted to trade Jefferson and some fillers, but I guess New York beat us to it. We were also trying to acquire Jermaine O'Neal. I'm not sure about Pau Gasol though, but we were trying to get atleast KG, Jermaine, or Zach Randolph.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">While I agree that it was a bad trade, and move, it was still not as bad as not re-signing Kenyon Martin. I think that if Mutombo didn't get injured, he couldn't have stopped Shaq, but he could have slowed him down. Before the year we traded for him, he played in 80 games hit double figures in scoring and in rebounding while nearly averaging 3 blocks a game. He could have been the missing piece we needed to slow down Shaq, unfortunately for him, once he arrived here he got injured which stopped him from playing in 72 games. </div> You are joking about Mutombo being able to even slow down Shaq. Mutombo was crying, I kid you not, in post game interviews after defending Shaq when he reached the finals as a 76er. Shaq was owning Mutombo in those games. If anything, Mutombo's presence made Shaq player harder since he must have expected a challenge was Mutombo. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Legacy:</div><div class="quote_post"> MacCulloch was good for us back then, but look at what happened to him when he went to Philly. Where is he now? </div> MacCulloch did not leave the game for his lack of play or skill. He came down with an unfortune disease: "genetic neuromuscular disorder that affected his feet" (Wikipedia) and had to retire. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Legacy:</div><div class="quote_post"> Not with a proper trainer. I know that Bruce Ratner and Rod Thorn would have hired the right trainer to get Kenyon to work on improving his knees and durability. Once again look at Vince Carter, before he was in New Jersey, he was extremely injury prone and had bad knees also which he got several surgeries on. What makes you think that same can't happen to Kenyon Martin.</div> So you are saying that it was simply bad luck that Kenyon's knees went "super-bad" in Denver, and that the Nets are simply lucky that Carter's knees have not gone bad? I fail to see this because Carter recovered from his injuries when the Nets traded for him. Martin, on the other hand, was already ailing from his knees when the Nets traded him. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Legacy:</div><div class="quote_post">That is another reason why I think not re-signing K-Mart and trading him was a bad move. With those draft picks who did we get, Marcus Williams who isn't going to be anywhere as good as Jason Kidd, but maybe a poor man's Stephon Marbury and Antonie Wright. The guy went 15th in the draft, but what has he done so far in his NBA career that could make him be remembered in a positive way?</div> You are still forgetting one thing: the other two draft picks, which turned out to spell Carter. Those draft picks where HUGE, merely for the reason that Carter is on the team right now. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Legacy:</div><div class="quote_post">Well actually we were trying to get Zach Randolph according to Rod Thorn. He wanted to trade Jefferson and some fillers, but I guess New York beat us to it. We were also trying to acquire Jermaine O'Neal. I'm not sure about Pau Gasol though, but we were trying to get atleast KG, Jermaine, or Zach Randolph.</div> I was arguing against MrJ's reliance on rumors to make his argument. Despite the subsistence of these rumors, the Jefferson re-signing is not even close to as bad as the Mutombo trade.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Legacy:</div><div class="quote_post">They were looking to re-build at that time, which is why they re-signed the 24 year old Jefferson at the time. He could have been an all star and possibly even a superstar by now, if Vince Carter wasn't on the team. Remember the beginning of the the 04-05 regular season? Carter wasn't on the team, Kidd wasn't playing cause he was injured, and Krstic was unknown at the time. Jefferson had the whole team to himself, I belive his numbers during the time was somewhere around, 23 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists a game. There were even some games were he had 40 points and nearly a triple double. He was having the best start of his career and could have been an all-star if it weren't for rupturing a ligament in his wrist. He had to miss 49 games due to that, but still made it to the first round series against the Miami Heat.</div> So, by your own admission, Jefferson needs to have the whole team to himself to pad his stats in order to be an all-star. I remember that season vividly and I acknowledged the fact Jefferson was a good player, however, he is not worth his $78 million pricetag, especially if he can’t become an all-star with the help of two other all-stars beside him; one which happens to be one of the best point guards in NBA history. You also have to wonder why the Nets, would opt to re-signing Jefferson over Martin, despite the fact Martin actually was an all-star that season and Jefferson wasn’t. I don’t want to hear he could have been an all-star, at the end of the day, you are measured by results—not excuses. The Jefferson signing hasn’t provided more wins and in the three years of his new contract, he had two seasons which he played 33 and 55 games. Regardless of what kind of injury he had, he hasn’t produced. Period. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting :</div><div class="quote_post"> Exactly. This proves that you can not win a championship without a good front line. If Kenyon Martin was still on the team, it would have been a different story.</div> What makes you think the Nets would have won a championship with K-Mart still in New Jersey? Also, if you haven’t noticed, your entire argument is based on a speculation, while my argument is based on a proven example. Since signing Jefferson to that $78 million contract, the Nets have not gotten past Game 6 of the second round. You’re speculating that re-signing an injury-prone Kenyon Martin (who is slightly above average at his position) to that ridiculous $93 million contract would have made the Nets a championship contender, which is just untrue. And how would the Nets be able to sign both Jefferson and Martin to those max deals which, combined, would equate to over $170 million due to both in the course of 6-7 years? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> The Blazers are in a re-building process right now, why would they want another small forward on the team when they have Brandon Roy who could fill that position easily.. Are they gonna use Jefferson as a back-up? No, which is why they wanted a younger power forward than Zach Randolph, which is the reason why they acquired Channing Frye. Sure he may be one year younger than Randolph, but they want a player who would hit his prime during the same time as everyone else on the team, plus Randolph's off-court issues were also a concern.</div> The fact that the Blazers were actually in discussions with the Nets about Jefferson proves they were interested. And Brandon Roy isn’t secluded to just small forward—he can play the 1 and 2 also. If the Blazers truly believed that position logic, then why would they acquire Frye when they already had Aldridge who plays power forward as well? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> The season he played two games in were with the Denver Nuggets, not the Nets. If he has re-signed with the Nets, would he have gotten the same injury, we don't know, but I certainly doubt it. I think if Vince Carter could stay healthy on this team, why can't Kenyon Martin?</div> I know it was with Denver. My point is Kenyon Martin has not shown the ability to stay healthy in recent years. Contrary to popular belief, Carter was never really prone to injury. His worst seasons he played in 43 and 60 games respectively which is a far cry to the severity of Martin’s injuries. Martin had two surgeries in the span of less than a year including the infamous microfracture surgery, which only Amare recovered from. The difference is Amare was 22 when he underwent the surgery and Kenyon Martin is almost 30. And it’s safe to say Kenyon would have still been in the same predicament if he were playing got the Nets. All the running and jumping he does on a nightly basis (which would have been increased playing with a running point guard in Kidd) took a toll on his knee. It’s not like a player injured him—like what Bowen did to Carter (another reason why he played in less games), Kenyon was bound to face some knee trouble with the way he plays. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> First off, him and Krstic play two completely different positions. The Nets needed help at the center spot, and I doubt that Jason Collins was gonna be the replacement for that spot. Krstic and Martin play different roles also. K-Mart is a post player and defensive specialist, while Nenad is a shooting center. As for Marcus Williams, I doubt he will be anything like Jason Kidd, if he's anything it will be a Steve Francis or Stephon Marbury with the shoot first mentality.</div> I think you’re reading too much into the positions. The fact of the matter is Kenyon Martin and Krstic especially, played both power forward and center during different stretches of games. Collins was definitely a part of the Nets’ plans for the future since he re-signed with Jefferson in 2004. And I never said Marcus Williams will be anything like Jason Kidd. He’s a talented point guard learning under one of the best point guards in league history. Surely, that’s something significant to the Nets future. Overall, the Nets, after trading Kenyon Martin, have gotten Vince Carter and Marcus Williams, who are cheaper than Martin and will be more serviceable for the Nets currently and for years to come, while Martin is trying to recover from a severe knee injury at age 30 and is due over $60 million.
<div class="quote_poster">Ma3oxuct Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">So you are saying that it was simply bad luck that Kenyon's knees went "super-bad" in Denver, and that the Nets are simply lucky that Carter's knees have not gone bad? I fail to see this because Carter recovered from his injuries when the Nets traded for him. Martin, on the other hand, was already ailing from his knees when the Nets traded him.</div> No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is it's such a coincidence that Carter came here and didn't get as injured as he used, but ever since K-Mart left, his injuries became much worse. He played in 65 games in his last season with the Nets, but only played in 2 last season with the Nuggets. As for Carter who played in only 73 games for the Raptors in his last season, but played in all 82 this season with the Nets. That also shows the difference between the Nets conditioning and training with the Nuggets and Raptors conditioning nd training. Luck? I think not. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I was arguing against MrJ's reliance on rumors to make his argument. Despite the subsistence of these rumors, the Jefferson re-signing is not even close to as bad as the Mutombo trade.</div> I actually agree with this, but I think I think trading Kenyon Martin was the worst. 1. Not re-signing and trading K-Mart 2. Trading for Mutombo 3. Re-signing Richard Jefferson
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> 1. Not re-signing and trading K-Mart 2. Trading for Mutombo 3. Re-signing Richard Jefferson</div> I just don't understand how this could be. If anything, out of those three trades, "Not re-signing and trading K-Mart", should be the best move. You still have not refuted the fact that the Martin trade indirectly resulted in Carter (an extremely positive acquisition).
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">So, by your own admission, Jefferson needs to have the whole team to himself to pad his stats in order to be an all-star. I remember that season vividly and I acknowledged the fact Jefferson was a good player, however, he is not worth his $78 million pricetag, especially if he can?t become an all-star with the help of two other all-stars beside him; one which happens to be one of the best point guards in NBA history.</div> You also have to take in mind that Vince Carter is the main scorer on this team filled with shooters. Nenad Krstic throws in 16 points, Mikki Moore this year scored 10 points a game, Nachbar came off the bench and scored big on occasions, hell even one of the best point guards in the game had nights where he went for 20 plus. Carter himself takes many jumpers in a game which takes away opportunities from Richard Jefferson. Carter takes about 21 shots in a game while Jefferson takes around 16. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What makes you think the Nets would have won a championship with K-Mart still in New Jersey? Also, if you haven?t noticed, your entire argument is based on a speculation, while my argument is based on a proven example. Since signing Jefferson to that $78 million contract, the Nets have not gotten past Game 6 of the second round.</div> That also proves my point in why not re-signing Kenyon Martin was a bad move. He took them to the finals twice along side Jason Kidd with a good supporting cast while Richard Jefferson, Vince Carter, an aging Jason Kidd, with a decent supporting cast hasn't gotten passed the second round. It's either traded K-Mart or re-signing Jefferson. I think it's the first reason. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The fact that the Blazers were actually in discussions with the Nets about Jefferson proves they were interested. And Brandon Roy isn?t secluded to just small forward?he can play the 1 and 2 also. If the Blazers truly believed that position logic, then why would they acquire Frye when they already had Aldridge who plays power forward as well?</div> Once again, Channing Frye is younger than Jefferson and could hit his prime during the same times as everyone else on the Blazers and they could all be on their best games during that stretch. I don't think Jefferson would have fit that role as good just because he is older than most of their starting line-up. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I know it was with Denver. My point is Kenyon Martin has not shown the ability to stay healthy in recent years. Contrary to popular belief, Carter was never really prone to injury. His worst seasons he played in 43 and 60 games respectively which is a far cry to the severity of Martin?s injuries. Martin had two surgeries in the span of less than a year including the infamous microfracture surgery, which only Amare recovered from. The difference is Amare was 22 when he underwent the surgery and Kenyon Martin is almost 30. And it?s safe to say Kenyon would have still been in the same predicament if he were playing got the Nets. All the running and jumping he does on a nightly basis (which would have been increased playing with a running point guard in Kidd) took a toll on his knee. It?s not like a player injured him?like what Bowen did to Carter (another reason why he played in less games), Kenyon was bound to face some knee trouble with the way he plays.</div> Carter and Jefferson are playing the same role as Kenyon Martin was back then, how come their knees aren't messed up. I know Kidd has surgery on his, but he bounced back to have arguably his best year ever, statistical wise. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think you?re reading too much into the positions. The fact of the matter is Kenyon Martin and Krstic especially, played both power forward and center during different stretches of games. Collins was definitely a part of the Nets? plans for the future since he re-signed with Jefferson in 2004. And I never said Marcus Williams will be anything like Jason Kidd. He?s a talented point guard learning under one of the best point guards in league history. Surely, that?s something significant to the Nets future. Overall, the Nets, after trading Kenyon Martin, have gotten Vince Carter and Marcus Williams, who are cheaper than Martin and will be more serviceable for the Nets currently and for years to come, while Martin is trying to recover from a severe knee injury at age 30 and is due over $60 million.</div> But then again, where has Carter taken the Nets in the past two years with the old Jason Kidd? Where has Kenyon Martin taken the Nets with the young Jason Kidd? How has Marcus Williams helped the Nets? I'll let you answer these questions and see for yourself.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">... Jefferson needs to have the whole team to himself to pad his stats in order to be an all-star. I remember that season vividly and I acknowledged the fact Jefferson was a good player, however, he is not worth his $78 million pricetag, especially if he can?t become an all-star with the help of two other all-stars beside him; one which happens to be one of the best point guards in NBA history. You also have to wonder why the Nets, would opt to re-signing Jefferson over Martin, despite the fact Martin actually was an all-star that season and Jefferson wasn?t. I don?t want to hear he could have been an all-star, at the end of the day, you are measured by results?not excuses. The Jefferson signing hasn?t provided more wins and in the three years of his new contract, he had two seasons which he played 33 and 55 games. Regardless of what kind of injury he had, he hasn?t produced. Period. </div> So what if Jefferson has not become an All-Star? All-star teams are often filled with players who do not deserve to be there and lack players that should be there. Jefferson is does not need to have a whole to pad his stats because he is not the type of player who puts emphasis on that. He is one of the most cooperative players in the NBA. He does what his team needs him to do. Statistics to not tell all about a player. Jefferson deserves his price tag for the reasons I outlined in a previous post. Furthermore, Jefferson's contract is not THAT huge. If it were $100 million, then maybe it would be too much for him. $78 miillion is not that much for a franchise player. I fail to see how that is a too high price tag for a player of Jefferson's caliber. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">The fact that the Blazers were actually in discussions with the Nets about Jefferson proves they were interested. </div> Ok, so the Nets were in discussions. I'll yield you this argument. What does it say however? It only says that the Nets were trying to get someone better for Jefferson. How is it a bad signing, if you have three cases: 1) Jefferson plays well for you. 2) Jefferson gets traded for a better player. 3) Jefferson is traded toward the end of his contract for a young improving player/draft pick. Note that there is no "Jefferson gets in to an ordeal with a coach", "Jefferson asks to be traded", "Jefferson is retiring due to injury". Jefferson is a solid player to is worth every penny he is paid because of his work ethic, his ability to play effectively along side two superstars, and his ability to spell superstar when his team needs it. I can guarantee you that the younger players on the Nets are influenced by Jefferson because they want to achieve what he has. Marcus Williams, Krstic and others work hard everyday because they feel that if they do so, they will become as successful as Jefferson.
<div class="quote_poster">Ma3oxuct Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I just don't understand how this could be. If anything, out of those three trades, "Not re-signing and trading K-Mart", should be the best move. You still have not refuted the fact that the Martin trade indirectly resulted in Carter (an extremely positive acquisition).</div> Vince carter is my favorite player, but IMO, Kenyon Martin got the Nets into the finals two times in a row, while Carter hasn't led them past the second round. Don't get me wrong, getting Vince Carter to me was one of our best moves, but K-Mart helped this team more. But then again, he also had more help and a young Jason Kidd. But overall facts are better than thoughts, which is why not re-signing Kenyon Martin was the worst move we have had.
<div class="quote_poster">Ma3oxuct Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The worst move by the Nets in the last 10 years was the acquisition of Dikembe Mutombo. On August 6, 2002, the Nets traded Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCulloch to the 76ers for Mutombo. The Nets made this trade because they lost to the Lakers in the 2002 finals. The Lakers had non-other than the mighty Shaq. Mutombo was a supurb defensive center. Nets the Nets' management thought Mutombo was the piece needed to stop Shaq in the finals in 2003. There were a lot of reasons why this was a very bad trade. Without hindsight, Mutombo was was clearly an aging player. Furthermore, he never showed the actual ability to defend Shaq (the #1 reason the Nets wanted him in the first place). The Nets were giving up a Van Horn in his prime (they could have traded him for someone better in the future, like a draft pick) and MacCulloch, an improving, young center, who played fairly well for the Nets off the bench. What happen when Mutombo played for the Nets? He made the Nets worse off. He was no longer the shot-blocker he once was. Kidd at one point that season said that the team was worse off defensively because the team let players blow by because they felt comfortable with a "shot blocker" behind them. It does not take a basketball expert to realize the Mutombo could never have been the shot blocker the Nets were looking for because he was way past his prime (36-37 years old at the time). To pour more salt on the wound, Mutombo bitched and moaned when he was benched after coming back from a wrist injury. The Nets were playing well as a team. Team chemistry was phenomenal with Collins at center, yet Mutombo cared about nothing but himself. They were surging in the playoffs, winning 12 consecutive games, after Mutombo cleaned up his act. Even more salt on the wound, the Nets ended up having to buy Mutombo out for $36 million dollars at season's end.</div> In hindsight, the Mutombo trade was a good deal for the Nets. First of all, they got an interior stopper who was the Defensive Player of the Year two years ago. I don’t buy “they only needed someone to stop Shaq”; the Western Conference was full of exceptional post players: Duncan, Garnett, Gasol, Webber, Brand to name a few, so it was hardly guaranteed the Nets would play Shaq the next time they reached the Finals (and they didn’t). Van Horn in his prime? That couldn’t be farther from the truth. He was 26 years old when they traded him and very expendable. And how could the Nets be worse off? Keith Van Horn was a huge liability on defense so immediately their defense got better. And after trading for Mutombo, the Nets went the furthest they have ever been in their franchise history! Game 6 of the NBA Finals is what trading Van Horn led to. Regardless of the bitching, the lost money, and all of Mutombo’s negatives he brought to the table the fact still remains, when they traded Van Horn, the franchise went its farthest ever. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Jefferson quite simply is the Nets' francise player. There are very good reasons for this: 1) He is still young and improving. 2) He is an excellent defender. 3) He does not have any "mental" issues in the sense that he does not get into trouble, has a great work ethic, respects the coach and teammates, etc. 4) He has shown to be able to lead the team (the stretch of games when Martin and Kidd sat out with Knee injuries. 5) He proven to be the perfect "chemistry" player. He plays well with Kidd and Carter. He can take everything upon himself when needed, etc.</div> Jefferson is and never was franchise player material. Re-signing Jefferson was a terrible move because the Nets made themselves unable to compete with this move. After they re-signed him, they failed to put any contender-worthy pieces around him. So basically they just signed him for about $80 million so the Nets can continue to be mediocre. With the Jefferson move, the Nets were unable to make it past the second round! Also, Jefferson has missed a significant amount of games over the past three seasons, playing just 55 games this past one. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And about the Nets wanting to trade Jefferson: I challenge to you give any other evidence other than just rumors. Rumors more often than not are false. I guarantee you that the Nets are NOT try to trade Jefferson (unless they can get something better, like Garnett).</div> While most rumors don’t come to fruition, they do have some legitimacy to them. Most originate from team discussions. Just like you can’t guarantee me the Nets aren’t looking to trade Jefferson, I can’t guarantee you that they are. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">One way or another, it is impossible for the Jefferson re-signing to be worse than the Mutombo trade. The Nets could have had a far stronger team for the season in which they lost in 6 games to the Spurs in the finals. If you remember why the Nets could not defeat the Spur, they had difficulty scoring. Who would have helped alleviate that? Van Horn! The Jefferson resigning was not even close to as bad as the Mutombo trade because Jefferson is clearly a piece of the championship puzzle and will remain such a piece until he exits his prime. Mutombo was a washed-up piece of garbage rather than a championship piece.</div> Point blank: after re-signing Jefferson, the Nets never past the second round. After trading Van Horn for Mutombo, the Nets franchise reached its peak. And Van Horn alleviate? Van Horn was notorious for being one of the league’s most unclutch players and, as the results of the 2003 Finals show, the Nets were in fact better without him. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">On top of that the Nets can get something out of Jefferson in the long run (you can always dump an expiring contract on a rebuilding team for some goodies; happens almost every season). What did the Nets get out of Mutombo? NOTHING. In fact, they bought out his contract for $36 MILLION after his only season with the Nets. Such a gesture proves even more how much the Nets wanted to get rid of him.</div> Usually you get a team’s high-priced junk with an expiring contract. If a team doesn’t want the “goodies” it usually means the player is a washed up star like Steve Francis or Chris Webber.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Point blank: after re-signing Jefferson, the Nets never past the second round. </div> It's funny cause the Nets haven't gotten past the second round ever since they traded Kenyon Martin also.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Vince carter is my favorite player, but IMO, Kenyon Martin got the Nets into the finals two times in a row, while Carter hasn't led them past the second round. Don't get me wrong, getting Vince Carter to me was one of our best moves, but K-Mart helped this team more. But then again, he also had more help and a young Jason Kidd. But overall facts are better than thoughts, which is why not re-signing Kenyon Martin was the worst move we have had.</div> No one player on the Nets (except maybe Kidd) could be the reason why the Nets made it to the Finals. Every player served a role and the Nets as a cohesive unit made it to the Finals. Had you taken Kidd, Jefferson, Martin, or even Kittles out of the roster and we could be looking at different results. <div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It's funny cause the Nets haven't gotten past the second round ever since they traded Kenyon Martin also.</div> The difference is Martin would not have led to another Finals appearance. The Nets couldn't re-sign both Jefferson and Martin to those huge contracts. You can't keep one without the other and therefore it would lead to more mediocrity for Jersey having either-or.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Vince carter is my favorite player, but IMO, Kenyon Martin got the Nets into the finals two times in a row, while Carter hasn't led them past the second round. Don't get me wrong, getting Vince Carter to me was one of our best moves, but K-Mart helped this team more. But then again, he also had more help and a young Jason Kidd. But overall facts are better than thoughts, which is why not re-signing Kenyon Martin was the worst move we have had.</div> I agree that K-Mart helped the team more, but would he have helped the team had he been resigned? MrJ and I have been argued that the team would be WAY worse off by re-signing Martin. Here is why the K-Mart trade was good: 1) The Nets would be significantly over-paying Martin (injuries or not). Remember that the Nets had Jefferson to resign the following year. 2a) Even with Martin healthy, the Nets would not have gone past Detroit or Miami. Detroit improved even more the season after winning the championship. Miami ofcourse got their hands on Shaq. Only this season would the Nets have had a chance to reach finals Martin; then again, had Krstic not been injured this season Nets might have topped the Cavs and Detroit. 2b) The Nets got Carter. Have the Nets not been competitive with him? In Carter's first season, they lost to Miami in the first round. Miami went on to win the championship. The Nets with Martin would not have been able to beat Miami. In Carter's second season, the lost to Miami again. Same story: A Martin centered team would not have done better. 3) K-Mart would no longer help the Nets with the injures he sustained. You have tried to argue that the Nets' training staff would have prevented this. However, this is a very weak argument. Sure, they healed Kidd. They are healing Jefferson's ankle and healed his wrist. Carter has been playing virtually injury-free. They have kept them injury free by preventing them from playing through injury. Kidd was out for a quarter of two seasons. Jefferson was out for three-fourth's of a season and a large chunk of another. Martin's knee situation was already bad when the Nets were going to be signing him. He would have been out for at least a whole season healing his knee (the first season, assuming the training staff is very good). By the time he would be back, the team would already be torn apart because Jefferson would not be afforded.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">In hindsight, the Mutombo trade was a good deal for the Nets. First of all, they got an interior stopper who was the Defensive Player of the Year two years ago. I don?t buy ?they only needed someone to stop Shaq?; the Western Conference was full of exceptional post players: Duncan, Garnett, Gasol, Webber, Brand to name a few, so it was hardly guaranteed the Nets would play Shaq the next time they reached the Finals (and they didn?t). Van Horn in his prime? That couldn?t be farther from the truth. He was 26 years old when they traded him and very expendable. </div> Ok, where to start.....Shaq, at the time, was "The Man". If you could stop Shaq's team, you could pretty stop any team (this was then the Lakers were about to 3-peat). Defensive player two years ago should NOT mean defensive player of the year to years later. Anyone could see Mutombo was going to junk miles away. Van Horn not in his prime? He was one of the reason the Nets went to the year before Mutombo. He was definitly expendable because of Jefferson's emergence, but why waste him on Mutombo. They could have done WAY better than Mutombo. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post"> And how could the Nets be worse off? Keith Van Horn was a huge liability on defense so immediately their defense got better. And after trading for Mutombo, the Nets went the furthest they have ever been in their franchise history! Game 6 of the NBA Finals is what trading Van Horn led to. </div> Their defense with Mutombo quite frankly, got worse, as I have previously explained. What good is relying on a shot blocker who can't block shots for his life? Even if Van Horn was not traded, and merely demoted to a backup role, the Nets would have been helped because they were lacking offense. They lost to the Spurs partly due to their long scoring droughts. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post"> Regardless of the bitching, the lost money, and all of Mutombo?s negatives he brought to the table the fact still remains, when they traded Van Horn, the franchise went its farthest ever. </div> Once again, they did not have to trade him for Mutombo. They could have done ALOT better than Mutombo. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post"> Jefferson is and never was franchise player material. Re-signing Jefferson was a terrible move because the Nets made themselves unable to compete with this move. After they re-signed him, they failed to put any contender-worthy pieces around him. So basically they just signed him for about $80 million so the Nets can continue to be mediocre. With the Jefferson move, the Nets were unable to make it past the second round! Also, Jefferson has missed a significant amount of games over the past three seasons, playing just 55 games this past one.</div> And despite his injuries the Nets are still competitive. They are still very competitive in fact. Heck, if they did not blow the Abdur-Rahim signing, they'd have their missing big man (The SAR example alone proves that Nets can maneuver with Jefferson's contract on the books). Jefferson has mostly been inactive during the regular season. When it comes down to winning a Championship, the regular season counts little. The Nets have faltered in the second round because they kept losing to teams that reached to won the finals (Miami and Cavs). <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Point blank: after re-signing Jefferson, the Nets never past the second round. After trading Van Horn for Mutombo, the Nets franchise reached its peak. And Van Horn alleviate? Van Horn was notorious for being one of the league?s most unclutch players and, as the results of the 2003 Finals show, the Nets were in fact better without him. </div> Had the Nets made a wiser trade they could have made it over the top. Van Horn un-cluch because of that Finals appearance? That series was a joke. Shaq was a monster that series and playoff. Van Horn's increased effort would have done very little to change a thing. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Usually you get a team?s high-priced junk with an expiring contract. If a team doesn?t want the ?goodies? it usually means the player is a washed up star like Steve Francis or Chris Webber.</div> You have been following the Knicks for too long. It is just about the only franchise in this league that takes washed up players like that. Recall Portland's dumping of expiring R. Wallace for Ratliff and SAR. Also recall Atlanta's subsequent dumping of R. Wallace to Detroit for a first round and other goodies. I can mention lots more trades that work this way: Expiring contract in-exchange for some goodies. Heck from Philly's point of view they were dumping Mutombo on the Nets for two goodies: Van Horn and MacCulloch. Hense my point is strenthened further: Philly took advantage of the Nets in Mutombo trade.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Ma3oxuct:</div><div class="quote_post">Ok, where to start.....Shaq, at the time, was "The Man". If you could stop Shaq's team, you could pretty stop any team (this was then the Lakers were about to 3-peat). Defensive player two years ago should NOT mean defensive player of the year to years later. Anyone could see Mutombo was going to junk miles away.</div> I understand how dominant Shaq was, however, the reason for the trade was to get better defensively inside, which includes trying to slow down all of the Western Conference powerhouse teams and their post players—not just Shaq. And like I mentioned, the Nets didn’t even play Shaq the following round. Two years removed from the Defensive Player of the Year isn’t that far like you make it out to be. My point is that Mutombo was still one of the best defensive players in the league and came off a solid year averaging 11/11 and 2.4 blocks. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Van Horn not in his prime? He was one of the reason the Nets went to the year before Mutombo. He was definitly expendable because of Jefferson's emergence, but why waste him on Mutombo. They could have done WAY better than Mutombo.</div> The word prime refers to a player’s peak before they start declining and Van Horn didn’t reach that plateau yet. If he was as good as you’re making him out to be, why is it that from 2002 to 2005 he’s been on five teams: Nets, 76ers, Knicks, Bucks, Mavs? You see, Van Horn was hardly a coveted player even when he is “entering his prime” like you suggest. Also, in a previous paragraph you said <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Who would have helped alleviate that? Van Horn!</div> But now you seem to be backtracking your statement by mentioning Jefferson’s emergence. The fact of the matter is if Van Horn were still around, he would take minutes away from Jefferson, who you fallaciously dubbed as a “franchise player”. So what are you saying, you would have rather traded Van Horn or kept him for the Finals (where he shot 38.6% for 10.5 points)? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Their defense with Mutombo quite frankly, got worse, as I have previously explained. What good is relying on a shot blocker who can't block shots for his life? Even if Van Horn was not traded, and merely demoted to a backup role, the Nets would have been helped because they were lacking offense. They lost to the Spurs partly due to their long scoring droughts.</div> Their defense got worse with Mutombo? He hardly played that season. Basically, by getting rid of Van Horn who was a huge defensive liability and one of the least clutch players in the league, the Nets were able to put up a good fight in the NBA Finals. The reason why the Nets were lacking offense is more so a result of the Spurs’ defense then it is the Nets’ lack of offense. Van Horn wouldn’t have done much better against the likes of the Spurs defense. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Once again, they did not have to trade him for Mutombo. They could have done ALOT better than Mutombo.</div> Like who? You still have yet to address this fact: when the Nets got rid of Van Horn, they made it to Game 6 of the NBA Finals, which is the farthest they have ever gone as a franchise. It’s hard to argue that this is their biggest mistake when it took the franchise to the farthest they have ever gone. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> And despite his injuries the Nets are still competitive. They are still very competitive in fact. Heck, if they did not blow the Abdur-Rahim signing, they'd have their missing big man (The SAR example alone proves that Nets can maneuver with Jefferson's contract on the books). Jefferson has mostly been inactive during the regular season. When it comes down to winning a Championship, the regular season counts little. The Nets have faltered in the second round because they kept losing to teams that reached to won the finals (Miami and Cavs).</div> Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Like I told Legacy, in the NBA you are measured by results, not excuses and blowing the Shareef Abdur-Rahim deal is an excuse. Besides, that following season he averaged only 12/5. He was hardly a solution for the Nets gaping hole in the frontcourt. The same excuse philosophy applies to Richard Jefferson. Whose fault is it that he has been mostly inactive during the regular season? What does matter is the Nets are paying him $80 million to be inactive during the regular season and considering the Nets have enjoyed little postseason success in recent years, they have been paying Jefferson for nothing, really. And losing to Finals teams (Miami, Cleveland) just proves that the Nets are not at a contending level even in the Eastern Conference. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Had the Nets made a wiser trade they could have made it over the top. Van Horn un-cluch because of that Finals appearance? That series was a joke. Shaq was a monster that series and playoff. Van Horn's increased effort would have done very little to change a thing.</div> Van Horn is unclutch not just because of his horrendous Finals performance, but because of a plethora of other incidents during the regular season and playoffs as well. If he struggled against the Lakers, how would he fair against a better defensive team in the Spurs? He only averaged 9.5 points on 38.8% shooting in 57 playoff games during his career. If the regular season means little like you said earlier, then Van Horn's career postseason play would suggest he is of little use. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> You have been following the Knicks for too long. It is just about the only franchise in this league that takes washed up players like that. Recall Portland's dumping of expiring R. Wallace for Ratliff and SAR. Also recall Atlanta's subsequent dumping of R. Wallace to Detroit for a first round and other goodies. I can mention lots more trades that work this way: Expiring contract in-exchange for some goodies. Heck from Philly's point of view they were dumping Mutombo on the Nets for two goodies: Van Horn and MacCulloch. Hense my point is strenthened further: Philly took advantage of the Nets in Mutombo trade.</div> Portland and Atlanta made a fair trade it was hardly dumping. Both Wallace and Abdur-Rahim were comparable being all-star power forwards. The trade to Detroit got Atlanta a late first round pick and the other “goodies” you are referring to are Zeljko Rebracca and Bob Sura. I think Atlanta would rather have Ciara’s goodies than the Pistons goodies of Sura, and Rebracca.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I understand how dominant Shaq was, however, the reason for the trade was to get better defensively inside, which includes trying to slow down all of the Western Conference powerhouse teams and their post players—not just Shaq. And like I mentioned, the Nets didn’t even play Shaq the following round. Two years removed from the Defensive Player of the Year isn’t that far like you make it out to be. My point is that Mutombo was still one of the best defensive players in the league and came off a solid year averaging 11/11 and 2.4 blocks.</div> Even though he averaged 11/11 the previous season one could see that his stats were not going to go up. As I said before, if at that time you found someone who could slow Shaq down, you would have someone who could slow the other Western big-men down. Even though Mutombo could be argued to still be a good defender at the time of the trade, you have consider the fact that his contract was HUGE, and certainly not worth getting due to the dent his contract would make in the Nets organization three years down the line. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">The word prime refers to a player’s peak before they start declining and Van Horn didn’t reach that plateau yet. If he was as good as you’re making him out to be, why is it that from 2002 to 2005 he’s been on five teams: Nets, 76ers, Knicks, Bucks, Mavs? You see, Van Horn was hardly a coveted player even when he is “entering his prime” like you suggest. "Who would have helped alleviate that? Van Horn!" Also, in a previous paragraph you said But now you seem to be backtracking your statement by mentioning Jefferson’s emergence. The fact of the matter is if Van Horn were still around, he would take minutes away from Jefferson, who you fallaciously dubbed as a “franchise player”. So what are you saying, you would have rather traded Van Horn or kept him for the Finals (where he shot 38.6% for 10.5 points)? </div> First of all, there is no rule in the books saying that Van Horn had to start over Jefferson. If he was not traded for someone else, he probably would have ended up as a bench player bringing offensive fire-power when required. Van Horn was in his prime because he stared to decline after the Nets traded him (his stats will show a decline with Kidd's arrival, but that was actually one his best seasons based on how the Nets came together as a team, etc.). Philly, and all those other teams, traded him because he became washed up and unmotivated...it can be argued that he needed a Jason Kidd to get him to play his best. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Their defense got worse with Mutombo? He hardly played that season. Basically, by getting rid of Van Horn who was a huge defensive liability and one of the least clutch players in the league, the Nets were able to put up a good fight in the NBA Finals. The reason why the Nets were lacking offense is more so a result of the Spurs’ defense then it is the Nets’ lack of offense. Van Horn wouldn’t have done much better against the likes of the Spurs defense. </div> Yes. Their defense got worse with Mutombo. In the stretch of games he played in the beginning of that season, the Nets were aweful defensively. There is a reason he was benched for most of playoffs and remaining regular season: because Collins (of all people) was doing a better job playing center than Mutombo did when he played. Once again, Van Horn would not necessarily have had to start over Jefferson. He probably would be asked to come in at strategic intervals. The Nets scoring droughts occurred against just about every team in the league that season. It was not only because of the Spurs' defense, but also because of the Nets' lack of shooters. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Like who? You still have yet to address this fact: when the Nets got rid of Van Horn, they made it to Game 6 of the NBA Finals, which is the farthest they have ever gone as a franchise. It’s hard to argue that this is their biggest mistake when it took the franchise to the farthest they have ever gone.</div> Could have kept MacCulloch and traded Van Horn for a low first round pick or high second round pick. I would mention some players had I remembered who was on what team back then. There were many options for Van Horn. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Like I told Legacy, in the NBA you are measured by results, not excuses and blowing the Shareef Abdur-Rahim deal is an excuse. Besides, that following season he averaged only 12/5. He was hardly a solution for the Nets gaping hole in the frontcourt.</div> I am a believer in the bottom-line as well. Look at the results of the Mutombo trade: 1) The Nets did not win the championship. 2) They had to pay over their ears to get rid of him. This is way worse than the Jefferson trade because there is no need to buy him out. So, result #1 holds with Jefferson's signing, but result #2 is unlikely to happen. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">The same excuse philosophy applies to Richard Jefferson. Whose fault is it that he has been mostly inactive during the regular season? What does matter is the Nets are paying him $80 million to be inactive during the regular season and considering the Nets have enjoyed little postseason success in recent years, they have been paying Jefferson for nothing, really. And losing to Finals teams (Miami, Cleveland) just proves that the Nets are not at a contending level even in the Eastern Conference. </div> Yes, the Nets are not contending at a maximal level, but Jefferson and his contract is NOT the problem. The problem is lack of luck or lack of management in getting a big man or other piece that can take the Nets over the top (they blew a few opportunities to like not drafting Al Jefferson or signing SAR). Jefferson is a piece of the championship puzzle and will remain so until he is too old (by that time his current contract will be up). <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Van Horn is unclutch not just because of his horrendous Finals performance, but because of a plethora of other incidents during the regular season and playoffs as well. If he struggled against the Lakers, how would he fair against a better defensive team in the Spurs? He only averaged 9.5 points on 38.8% shooting in 57 playoff games during his career. If the regular season means little like you said earlier, then Van Horn's career postseason play would suggest he is of little use. </div> It is very difficult to predict how it would have played out if Van Horn was kept. His first unclutch performance was during the Finals against the Lakers. I have argued that it was a "senseful" unclutch performance because of the might of the Lakers at the time. Furthermore, I was never much of a proponent of Van Horn staying. Van Horn theoretically would have helped the Nets in finals again the Spurs. That is the only suggestion I made about his remaining on the Nets. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Portland and Atlanta made a fair trade it was hardly dumping. Both Wallace and Abdur-Rahim were comparable being all-star power forwards. The trade to Detroit got Atlanta a late first round pick and the other “goodies” you are referring to are Zeljko Rebracca and Bob Sura. I think Atlanta would rather have Ciara’s goodies than the Pistons goodies of Sura, and Rebracca.</div> I never said that *everything* Atlanta got were goodies. Atlanta got goodies in the trade despite that fact that it also got some non-goodies. Additionally, it is not as if Sura and Rebracca were $10 million contract, messing up a team's future long-term. P.S. About SAR not playing well in Sacramento: I can be argued that he would have played better for the Nets because of Kidd and a general atmosphere of trying to win a championship.
