Is there a scenario justifiying a big trade acquisition this year?

DISCLAIMER: This post is based on assumptions that have a very low probability of coming true. It's harmless, wild speculation meant to kill time between games and give an outlet for those who, like me, are prone to fits of extreme optimism about the Nets. If that sort of thing irritates you, this thread is not for you.

A big part of our rebuilding plan (allegedly) was to clear cap space for 2010. But suppose that the Nets are near .500 at the trade deadline and still improving appreciably week to week. Let's suppose it's obvious by then that Yi is a future all star and that Lopez is the real deal in the middle. Let's also suppose that Carter is healthy and still playing with the focus and all-round excellence that he has displayed since the Kidd trade.

Would it be wise at that time to consider a trade that would bring back a major player with big salary beyond 09-10 from an organization that realizes it needs to reshuffle the deck or that is badly underachieving? Let's assume the Net untouchables in the trade are Harris, Carter, Yi, and Lopez and that we wouldn't give up more than two of our other young players (Boone, Williams, CDR, Anderson).

The reason for this query: if a team filled with such inexperienced players defies all conventional wisdom and proves good enough to win about half its games in only its first half season together, should we start to consider a NEW window for real winning, namely the window in which Carter can reasonably be expected to produce at or near his current level?

In addition to our 4 young players, we also have 3 #1s over the next two seasons and the rights to Nenad Kristic from which to cull a package.

An example of the kind of acquisition I'm talking about is in order, so let's try this one:

Andre Kirilenko for Ryan Anderson, Stromile Swift, Bobby Simmons, and a lottery-protected first.

Saves Utah the third year on Kirilenko's contract (but also wrecks NJ's cap for 2010, necessitating a S&T for any of the big FAs out there). Swift's expiring helps them with their payroll as they have to pay Boozer big bucks next off season. Gets them a serviceable, veteran SF that can hit the 3 and fit a role well in their half court sets and a smart, versatile forward prospect with a seemingly bright future in Anderson.

NJ gets a stat-stuffer that can comfortably play both forward positions, is an improving 3-point shooter (38% last year) and is perhaps the most versatile defender in the NBA.

In the circumstances outlined, would you do this trade (and just assume that Utah would, for purposes of discussion, even if you think they wouldn't).

 

Ryan is a great trade chip

 

we've talked about the balance that Nets (apparently) have, and the plan they put together in building this roster. To make a trade like that, they'll have to give up a 3 or 4-for-1, which would completely blow things up. I just think it is a mistake, at least the way I see things. If you consider Harris, Vince, Yi, and Brook untouchable, then you have to acquire a SF, or one of those players won't get a chance to develop. I wouldn't mind consolidating assets a little bit by, say, bundling Swift, Hassell, and use Sean as the kicker, but we're not going to get much for that.

I guess I just am not sold that it would be wise in the long run. Chances are that we'd have to give up Lopez to get an impact player. Just my view.

 

I don't think a guy like Kirilenko would be enough to bring a .500 team to the next level. Like Dumpy said, in order to get a guy who would really make the team contenders again we would have to give up either one of the four untouchable guys you listed, probably either Yi or Lopez. I'd rather keep the current roster and see them improve for the next year and a half before going for the big fish in 2010, whoever that would be.

 

There aren't many SFs out there that can push this team over the top and are worth spending on beyond 2010. Only one I can see the Nets trading for would be Melo or the King himself, but that won't happen.

 

I think you can have your cake and eat it too. There are a lot of big name acquisitions you can make that don't have very long contracts - Rasheed Wallace immediately comes to mind, I'm sure there are others.

 

Allen Iverson is one of those I thought of, and he could actually be traded before the deadline if the Nuggets struggle. But I don't know where he fits on a team that has both Harris and Carter. I suppose you could play VC at the 3 and both Harris and Iverson in the backcourt, but that would be a small, if lightning fast, backcourt.

 

They've transitioned from a "big three" surrounded by crap to a team with great depth and a common, focused mindset.

Stars are nice, but why would we want to go back? It was just one game, but we saw how having a half-dozen shooters can impact the game, even if they are not "stars." Wait until the kiddies start to improve.

 

You know me. I'm a Vince fan first, and if this team ends up being as good as I think they can be, my mindset is going to change from "we can make the playoffs" to "screw 2010, if we had another real impact player that you didn't have to wait on to fully develop, we could actually make some real noise in the playoffs, certainly in 2009 if not this year".

I really don't want to see an eventuality like this one: VC works his tail off for two seasons trying to help this team mature and is traded just when it looks like they're ready to really win. OR, by the time they're ready to win, he's in clear decline and is not contributing heavily to the effort.

It's just my Vince love taking over and my realization that he is 3 months away from his 32nd birthday. And remember the disclaimer that started this whole thread!

 

For some of us, 32 is young! Remember that, old lady.

We'd have to give up our depth to get another star. We'd look like the Dallas Mavericks. Also, what's the chance that we'd get someone who was unselfish, shared the ball, and busted his ass on defense? There are SO many teams with a "big three." How many are actually above average? Look at Atlanta: Joe Johnson, Josh Smith, and Mike Bibby. That sounds pretty good, right? They suck.

 

Yes, we who are nearing social security think of 32 as young ghoti, but I don't think the same goes for NBA ballers.

Seriously, I'm not proposing "giving up our depth", and, in view of the improbable assumptions in the thread, I'm not proposing AT THIS TIME to trade anyone. The thread asks the question, is there a scenario justifying a big trade acquisition this year? You clearly don't think so, and I don't REALLY think so, but what if Nets prove to be much better than anyone (including you or me) anticipated? As in they will beat some western powers this year on the road and be at .500 by the deadline and still improving every week? Does that move the window or change the plan?

Recall that Thorn was widely regarded as having gotten a terrific deal for a 30-something HOF guard making $20M. If he could wind up landing Iverson for less than he took for Kidd (this is Thorn, afterall . . . say Swift and Simmons for salary plus picks), does an eventuality like a real shot THIS YEAR OR NEXT (with a personnel tweak) change the plan, especially in view of Vince's age?

And on this "stars are overrated" thing, yes, sometimes they are, especially if you're lowering the bar several tiers to include trios like Joe Johnson, Mike Bibby, and Josh Smith. Johnson is the only one of those three in any way deserving of being a "big" anything, IMO. But there's plenty to suggest that star conglomerations like Bryant/Gasol/Odom or Bryant/O'Neal or Nash/Stoudemire/Marion or Wade/O'Neal or Duncan/Parker/Ginobli or Pierce/Garnett/Allen or Johnson/Jabar/Worthy or Bird/McHale/Parish or Russell/Cousy/(name your 3rd star) are the way to construct championship-caliber teams.

Of course the hidden truth in this proposal is that if the Nets are good enough to meet the conditions of this thread, then someone (besides Carter) is going to have to emerge as a real star anyway, with Yi and Harris being the most likely candidates.

 

I honestly think what we'r doing right now is the right way to go about it. Get another good wing player in next years draft (Derozan, if we'r lucky) and a big FA in 2010. Don't make trades unless it's something redunkulous and keep a good group of young guys together for a good part of their career. Have a complete team.

As for Vince, in 2 years do you really think he wont be able to play anymore? I think he'll still be good. He won't be the superstar carry the team good but 15-18 ppg isnt out of the question with his shooting ability. If Vince really loves NJ and the nets, which i honestly think he does love it here, he'll resign with the nets for a lower price and be a key contributer, not the superstar, for our team.

 

That's the thing. When they win, I want him to be the superstar, if at all possible.

 

If the Nets are at .500 with this roster, why make any (major) changes and ruin the chemistry since it would be the chemistry, not the raw talent, that got them to .500.

Some tweaks here and there--maybe Sean Williams for Javaris Crittendon or Channing Frye--but nothing drastic would be in order.

 

Since 1980, one team (2004 Pistons) has won a title without a top 10 player. Who is our top 10 player? It aint Vince.

 

Completely and utterly subjective...and silly.

 

A motivated, healthy Vince Carter is EASILY still top 10 in this league, and, yes, he's motivated and healthy.

 

Ok, then your assertion that it's silly is also subjective.

 

If he's had motivation issues in the past, I can't be assured he will be motivated on a young team all season.

 

Perhaps not, but that's not what I said. While healthy and motivated, he plays like a top 10 player. Period.

He played some terrific basketball and was consistently aggressive and motivated in every game, post Kidd trade, last season, and he did it on one ankle. Now healthy, he has looked fantastic throughout preseason and the first game.

The circumstances on this team are much different than they have been at any time since his arrival in NJ. HE is different. He's now not worried about other star egos, usurping someone else's role as leader, etc. He also seems more concerned with winning and less concerned with making a spectacular play or showcasing his phenomenal individual talent, and that shows in the maturation of his judgment and shot selection. He's 4 years older than when he arrived in Jersey and is now unquestionably both the leader and best player on the team, the second oldest, and the most experienced. He is also clearly contemplating his legacy to the sport.

These are factors not to be overlooked in predicting how consistent his approach will be throughout the season.