<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScoringPG1850 @ Mar 7 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>RJ for Josh Childress. He's starting to come around. A great hustle player. Someone to snag rebounds and follow-up on misses. He's a good ball handler and his shot % and selection is improving every year. Good go-to guy for Devin.</div> Who the #$%@ do you think you are? And what business do you have bringing up great ideas like this? RJ for Childress would be great. Better than Outlaw, maybe...because of the 'fro. Now, I'm wondering if Atlanta would bite on this. It's a longshot, but a possibility. Btw...Welcome to S2, ScoringPG!! If you have any questions or anything, lemme know.
RJ for Childress makes my brain hurt. The Hawk to get is Smoov while their ownership is still dysfunctional enough to make it happen.
Let me try, as I am wont to do, to bring a measure of respect and sanity to this threat..uh, thread. Devin Harris is a building stone, not a corner stone. His contract is mid to high, five years, $47 million, starting at $7.8 million next season. The larger question is whether you think Richard Jefferson is a franchise player or not. He and Harris should mesh. He is only two years older than Harris. Personally, I don't think Jefferson is a franchise player, but a very good complementary player. Assume the Nets see Jefferson and Harris as centerpieces. What do they bring? Athleticism (check), defense (check), marketability (check). Next assume that the four young big men--Krstic, Diop, Boone and SWilliams--are all part of the Nets long term plan (an assumption I am not sure of). With the exception of Krstic, they are all athletic, good defenders, more or less marketable, and without much offensive potential. Krstic on the other hand does have offensive skills...and can board a bit. Marcus Williams? as a backup and as a complementary player, he should be fine. So what does that leave us with? The Nets could use a leader, a veteran, someone who could dominate upfront and serve as a mentor to the young bigs, someone who could offset Krstic's "soft game" with a tough inside game. Elton Brand fits that role. He WILL be available. Inside source says he WILL opt out. LA could use star power like Carter's to offset the loss of Brand, Cassell, Maggette, etc. Might work as an s&t with one of those picks and some of that cash. (Also, I have great faith in the Nets' orthopedic staff to assure Thorn his achilles issue is past) In short, your original post was, as usual, a red herring. I have brought it back to the bright, bold, beautiful world of reality.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Mar 8 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Assume the Nets see Jefferson and Harris as centerpieces. What do they bring? Athleticism (check), defense (check), marketability (check).</div> Explain how Richard Jefferson brings defense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 8 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Mar 8 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Assume the Nets see Jefferson and Harris as centerpieces. What do they bring? Athleticism (check), defense (check), marketability (check).</div> Explain how Richard Jefferson brings defense. </div> I was just about to ask the same question Rj has no defense and has "IM KOBE" syndrome And Harris hasnt shown much since his arrival Im very skeptical at this time
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Mar 8 2008, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 8 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Mar 8 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Assume the Nets see Jefferson and Harris as centerpieces. What do they bring? Athleticism (check), defense (check), marketability (check).</div> Explain how Richard Jefferson brings defense. </div> What i meant by not "shown much " was regarding his defensive skills. sorry for leaving that out in the previous post. I was just about to ask the same question Rj has no defense and has "IM KOBE" syndrome And Harris hasnt shown much since his arrival Im very skeptical at this time </div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Mar 8 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Let me try, as I am wont to do, to bring a measure of respect and sanity to this threat..uh, thread. Devin Harris is a building stone, not a corner stone. His contract is mid to high, five years, $47 million, starting at $7.8 million next season. The larger question is whether you think Richard Jefferson is a franchise player or not. He and Harris should mesh. He is only two years older than Harris. Personally, I don't think Jefferson is a franchise player, but a very good complementary player. Assume the Nets see Jefferson and Harris as centerpieces. What do they bring? Athleticism (check), defense (check), marketability (check). Next assume that the four young big men--Krstic, Diop, Boone and SWilliams--are all part of the Nets long term plan (an assumption I am not sure of). With the exception of Krstic, they are all athletic, good defenders, more or less marketable, and without much offensive potential. Krstic on the other hand does have offensive skills...and can board a bit. Marcus Williams? as a backup and as a complementary player, he should be fine. So what does that leave us with? The Nets could use a leader, a veteran, someone who could dominate upfront and serve as a mentor to the young bigs, someone who could offset Krstic's "soft game" with a tough inside game. Elton Brand fits that role. He WILL be available. Inside source says he WILL opt out. LA could use star power like Carter's to offset the loss of Brand, Cassell, Maggette, etc. Might work as an s&t with one of those picks and some of that cash. (Also, I have great faith in the Nets' orthopedic staff to assure Thorn his achilles issue is past) In short, your original post was, as usual, a red herring. I have brought it back to the bright, bold, beautiful world of reality.</div> You managed to describe a team with no shot at winning an NBA championship unless they get lucky in the 2008 lottery.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 6 2008, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>OK, now I'm home. I am a proponent of getting the centerpiece of the team in place first and building from there. I think gathering complimentary pieces and then trying to find a championship-level player to add to fit those pieces is the exact wrong way to build a title team. That said, you have to have players on your roster. You can't throw cap space out there to play. So during the rebuilding or retooling process it's important to identify what kind of players will be most likely to fit with any type of roster and develop those players. That's why I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to hang onto Devin Harris. First of all, good defenders are always in style. Nobody has ever wanted to get rid of a player for being too good defensively no matter what style the team plays. Harris has demonstrated in high-pressure playoff situations that he can guard star players and get his team stops. That's a valuable, tough-to-find asset to have - especially in such a young player - if the goal is to win it all. Second, he is a versatile offensive player who can fit a variety of different styles. He can penetrate and dish in the half court. He can create his own shot and get to the rim. He's great at pushing the ball in transition. Whether the star the Nets eventually get is a big man or a Kobe-style initiator, Harris will have an important offensive role that he will be able to perform well. Third, Harris is still developing. He has not reached his full potential and many feel (and this is why his value around the league is so high) that the underdeveloped parts of his game (distribution, court awareness, jump shooting) are improving and will eventually become assets. Finally, Harris is a hard worker. He plays with intensity and it's not hard to envision him as a team leader in the future. I'm not a big "intangibles" guy, but a good litmus test (that I think many teams have actually started using) is the "Spurs Test". As in "Would the Spurs commit to having this guy on their roster long-term?" I think he passes that test. I agree with the premise that Harris' value is high and a lot of that value is based only on potential. That screams "trade!" But if no incredible offers come along or there is opportunity to gather assets and dump salary another way (*ahem*, the 6th leading scorer in the league - hint, hint) I don't think it would be a terrible thing to stick with Harris and see what shakes out.</div> To your centerpiece concept, how do you propose obtaining one? Is it the 2008 lottery pick? To your third point about Harris, how long do you believe it will take for him to reach that level?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (reganomics813 @ Mar 6 2008, 07:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm very much of the opinion we throw a bunch of stuff on the floor and we see what works. We are in a transition period where maybe we can squeak into the playoffs but we really shouldn't and hopefully won't to help in the grand scheme of things. Getting a nice lottery pick this year could be pretty helpful in getting us a player who can help create a vision for this team or be an asset to trade with. Everything depends on where the ping pong balls fall before we can seriously discuss what road we're headed down. The Nets as they're currently constructed have 2 starters (RJ and VC) and a whole lot of players that should be coming off the bench on any other team. It's no secret Thorn would like to move RJ and VC but their contracts make it pretty tricky. I like the idea of moving carter first only to force the ball into Devin's hands for him to take a shot at being the man for this team. VC is a crutch for Frank. I'm not saying the results will be pretty but necessary in in the learning process IMO. Reality is RJ's the easier to move simply off of age and probably will be if anyone offers a decent player and a low first rounder for him. Our most sought after players are Sean, Diop, Devin, Boone, and Krstic (pending he doesn't suffer any setbacks) in that order. I like keeping all but Nenad as he could fetch us some nice 2/3 depth or be a nice side piece to a VC or RJ deal. Diop will probably get another nice offer where the Nets will be forced into a sign and trade because of the cap but i'd really like to see a good competition between Diop/Boone/and Sean as they get acclimated to Devin to see what kind of chemistry they can form. Swift and Boki need to go IMO. Swift bought out and Boki sign and traded or just let walk away as he's not worth anything more than he's being paid now. Both have low to no value IMO. Marcus is the wild card because he could play himself into tricking another team into giving us more than he's worth through blaming Frank for holding him back. Trenton is serviceable and could be used to match up salaries using one of our young players as bait. Armstrong and Ager can just walk away. The opportunities for us to capitalize on aren't there yet. Who knows who could be available by the summer and who knows what kind of interest our players can drum up by then. We got Devin why not give him a shot? Is that to say we build around him? Not necessarily but his upside beats out his worst case scenario IMO where he might as well and if something better comes along than so be it. I'm sure the goal is to surround him with equally quality additions where we have a nice deep team and he has a reasonable enough of a contract to do just that.</div> So the only players you want to keep for any significant period of time are Devin, Sean, Boone and Diop? If you are looking for two of three bigs to be starters, that is putting a tremendous amount of pressure to score on the wings that aren't on the roster yet.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 6 2008, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In my opinion, the Devin Harris-Marcus Williams tandem will be good enough to be able to produce a successful team. You can argue that you can get good value for either one or both of those guys, but I would see a PG change as a low priority at this point. Marginal improvements, at best. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and as a tandem they could compliment each other fairly well. I'd be happy to take Armstrong back next year if he doesn't retire, or some other veteran PG who'll come cheap and not complain about his minutes. I'm not ready to jump ship on Vince. I'm still not convinced that his game is deteriorating. As FOMW has detailed, there are signs that his struggles are injury related. Note also that he is significantly worse in the second of back-to-back games than when he has had more rest, which further substantiates that claim. We won't know for sure until next year, but I see no reason to try to deal him if there's even a chance that he'll return to the Vince Carter of the last two years, when he was pretty stunning offensively. Boone-Sean-Krstic-Diop is a decent enough front-court, assuming that Krstic is returned by the aliens that abducted him. I go back and forth on whether I want to keep Krstic, but it appears it will happen--there was an article on yahoo! a day or so ago that wasn't listed by nets daily that kind of suggested that he'll be back with the Nets next year. There's no star power here. No impact player. I obviously like Boone and think he's a good complimentary player who is smart and works hard. I'm not sure what Sean will develop into. I'd love to add a significant frontcourt scoring threat to this group, but that's just unrealistic. You can't find those guys, which is why I think Krstic will be back. I'd package Sean for someone more polished, but I'm not sure how much of an upgrade it'll be. Is it worth dealing Sean for someone like Wilcox? Diop has impressed me, though. I'd trade Sean before Boone. Sean may never figure out how to play, while Boone knows his strengths and limitations and plays solid defense. Swift is close to worthless--he's better than John Thomas--and he'll be impossible to deal, so I expect him to be back unless he has Rodney Rogers' agent. The Nets won't buy him out. RJ is a mess and I'd be happy to deal him. For what? For who? No idea. The bench swingman reserves, Hassell, Boki, and Ager, are a disaster. I think the Nets are stuck with Hassell unless they combine him in a deal with Sean for a better PF. I like Boki but I'd let him go and hope to replace him with a better shooting, better defensive free agent. I'd like to see Ager have a chance to contribute, but we haven't really gotten a chance to see him at all. He's probably a dime a dozen.</div> What are you defining as success for this scenario?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 8 2008, 11:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 6 2008, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>OK, now I'm home. I am a proponent of getting the centerpiece of the team in place first and building from there. I think gathering complimentary pieces and then trying to find a championship-level player to add to fit those pieces is the exact wrong way to build a title team. That said, you have to have players on your roster. You can't throw cap space out there to play. So during the rebuilding or retooling process it's important to identify what kind of players will be most likely to fit with any type of roster and develop those players. That's why I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to hang onto Devin Harris. First of all, good defenders are always in style. Nobody has ever wanted to get rid of a player for being too good defensively no matter what style the team plays. Harris has demonstrated in high-pressure playoff situations that he can guard star players and get his team stops. That's a valuable, tough-to-find asset to have - especially in such a young player - if the goal is to win it all. Second, he is a versatile offensive player who can fit a variety of different styles. He can penetrate and dish in the half court. He can create his own shot and get to the rim. He's great at pushing the ball in transition. Whether the star the Nets eventually get is a big man or a Kobe-style initiator, Harris will have an important offensive role that he will be able to perform well. Third, Harris is still developing. He has not reached his full potential and many feel (and this is why his value around the league is so high) that the underdeveloped parts of his game (distribution, court awareness, jump shooting) are improving and will eventually become assets. Finally, Harris is a hard worker. He plays with intensity and it's not hard to envision him as a team leader in the future. I'm not a big "intangibles" guy, but a good litmus test (that I think many teams have actually started using) is the "Spurs Test". As in "Would the Spurs commit to having this guy on their roster long-term?" I think he passes that test. I agree with the premise that Harris' value is high and a lot of that value is based only on potential. That screams "trade!" But if no incredible offers come along or there is opportunity to gather assets and dump salary another way (*ahem*, the 6th leading scorer in the league - hint, hint) I don't think it would be a terrible thing to stick with Harris and see what shakes out.</div> To your centerpiece concept, how do you propose obtaining one? Is it the 2008 lottery pick? To your third point about Harris, how long do you believe it will take for him to reach that level? </div> 1. I think the Nets are going to stumble into the playoffs, so no. Maybe the 2009 pick but more likely a trade. (Something like picks and a player for a lottery pick and cap filler - similar to what Seattle did last year.) 2. It's hard to say, because I don't even know what level he can reach. I've heard "All-Star" being thrown around, but I'm not too sure I buy that. I'll say his real value lies in his ability to affect the game on both ends during key possessions in the playoffs. That's worth his salary if the Nets can't put together a deal they like for him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 8 2008, 11:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So the only players you want to keep for any significant period of time are Devin, Sean, Boone and Diop? If you are looking for two of three bigs to be starters, that is putting a tremendous amount of pressure to score on the wings that aren't on the roster yet.</div> It also puts a lot of pressure on them as well to step up to the challenge without question. We are going to struggle after we move our vets even more so than we are now, there's no bones about it, but I feel that's necessary to really test what we have now to figure out what kind of a base we truly have to build from. Decent pg's and bigs are tough to come by and luckily we're starting out with a few as we try and figure out the best way to build this squad. As I said before, opportunities we wouldn't even think possible could arise and our rebuilding could take a dramatic turn in a completely different direction but the players mentioned above are 4 players who could thrive together or fetch us something we're lacking so yes those are who I would like to see stay.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Mar 8 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Elton Brand fits that role. He WILL be available. Inside source says he WILL opt out. LA could use star power like Carter's to offset the loss of Brand, Cassell, Maggette, etc. Might work as an s&t with one of those picks and some of that cash. (Also, I have great faith in the Nets' orthopedic staff to assure Thorn his achilles issue is past) In short, your original post was, as usual, a red herring. I have brought it back to the bright, bold, beautiful world of reality.</div> OMG i was thinking the EXACT same thing. What we've been missing for the longest time is a dominant big man to put our cast around. Harris and jefferson are solid at their roles, but sometimes i also think harris may be better fitted at SG, but no other point guards come in mind. It seems like the plays lawrence frank draws up requires a dominant big man instead of giving the ball to carter/jefferson in the post all the time and letting them create from there. We need the shooters to be on the perimeter, and that dominant big man who can score down low. Our big men are all inconsistant in offense which I believe is a big problem in our gameplay. Another problem is that we need shooters, because the zone kills us and we need to spread the defense more, or have that big guy down there to draw the zone in and kick out. Elton brand woudl complement us perfectly, and a future being built around harris jefferson and brand seem nothing but bright.
