2020-21 NBA Regular Season Thread

[mkirsh]

Wow. Kept KD and KI. This seems to be a question of whether KI now > Russ then and KD post-Achilles and prima harden now.

As a Wizards fan I’d be happy to send Russ and Scott Brooks to the Nets

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

As a Wizards fan I’d be happy to send Russ and Scott Brooks to the Nets

Russ, KD, and Harden? Sounds familiar.

[bundabergdevil]

Yes! I’ll say it one more time - this will blow up in the Nets’ face. If they end up as Eastern Conference champions, I will quickly offer a mea culpa.

I tend to agree. It IS hard to bet against talent but, well, we'll see.

[BigZ]

This tells me that Kyrie will be back ASAP

[Steven43]

I have no idea. It makes no sense to me unless they plan on getting rid of Kyrie too. Still, to have traded away so much for one guy is insane, imho.

Not so fast, my friend! Commissioner Adam Silver just released a statement stating that the Brooklyn Nets will be allowed two basketballs on offense rather than the traditional one. So they might be okay.

Personally, I think they’re going to need three.

[duke96]

Maybe this is a heading strategy where the Nets assume that one of Kyrie and Harden will be willing to play on any given night.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'm not an expert at negotiations but when the opposing side is absolutely desperate to get rid of an asset, you are usually considered to be in a pretty advantageous negotiating position. I have no idea why the Nets gave up so much to get Harden. Personally, I wouldn't have given up a Nathan's hot dog to get him as I think he is a net negative, despite how much he scores. But the Nets gave up way too much. At least make it fewer picks and/or pick swaps?

[bundabergdevil]

Not so fast, my friend! Commissioner Adam Silver just released a statement stating that the Brooklyn Nets will be allowed two basketballs on offense rather than the traditional one. So they might be okay.

Personally, I think they’re going to need three.

Does that mean Harden is awarded 3X the freebie travelling calls? I'm bad at math.

[JasonEvans]

This is one of the worst trades I can imagine.

Lets talk draft picks first -- The pick swaps in '25 and '27 and the unprotected pick in '26 are likely to be high lottery picks as The Nets will probably stink in about 4 years. Harden, KD, and Kyrie will be mid-upper 30s by then (and, as free agents, may have flown the coop if not retired). This deal hamstrings the Nets in terms of cap flexibility while also taking away their younger assets (more on that in a moment). Plus, by giving up many of their draft assets, the Nets won't be getting more young players around whom to build the team over the next few years anyway. The Nets are going to be awful in a few years and the Rockets will get all those picks. If the deal only involved the draft picks, it would be a pretty good haul for Houston... but there is more.

Houston also gets Oladipo. I'm not sure why Indiana did this deal or what they get out of it but, whatever. LeVert and Oladipo are basically the same player, good scorers who are not super efficient. LeVert is 2 years younger and a little better of a distributor while Oladipo is a better defender and more explosive. Bottom line is that the Nets gave up a very useful bench scorer... but that may be ok as I suspect the Nets may not need much bench scoring as I think they will try to have one of the their big three on the floor at all times.

The head scratching part to me is Cleveland's side of the deal. The Cavs sent Milwaukee's '22 first rounder (not worth much as the Bucks will be picking at the end of the first round), their '24 second rounder (who cares?), and Dante Exum (barely a rotation player) out in the deal... and they got back Jarrett Allen and Taurean Prince. Prince is fine, a rotation guy but not someone who really moves the needle. But how on Earth did the Cavs get Allen in this deal?!?! He's 22 years old and averages a double-double with nice rim protection. I think he's probably one of the 5 best young (under 25) centers in the league. It is not at all difficult to project him making an all-star team at some point in his career. And he is under team control on a favorable contract for a couple more years. A week ago, Allen had 19 and 18 with 3 steals and 2 blocks in a rout of Utah while utterly dominating his matchup with Rudy Gobert. How did Cleveland get him for Exum and a late first round pick?!?! What the !#^@& is happening here?

-Jason "There must be something that I missed... some asset that Cleveland sent out that makes this make sense. I just cannot understand it. The Cavs must have naked pictures of the Nets GM to get this deal" Evans

[Billy Dat]

This is one of the worst trades I can imagine.

Lets talk draft picks first -- The pick swaps in '25 and '27 and the unprotected pick in '26 are likely to be high lottery picks as The Nets will probably stink in about 4 years. Harden, KD, and Kyrie will be mid-upper 30s by then (and, as free agents, may have flown the coop if not retired). This deal hamstrings the Nets in terms of cap flexibility while also taking away their younger assets (more on that in a moment). Plus, by giving up many of their draft assets, the Nets won't be getting more young players around whom to build the team over the next few years anyway. The Nets are going to be awful in a few years and the Rockets will get all those picks. If the deal only involved the draft picks, it would be a pretty good haul for Houston... but there is more.

Houston also gets Oladipo. I'm not sure why Indiana did this deal or what they get out of it but, whatever. LeVert and Oladipo are basically the same player, good scorers who are not super efficient. LeVert is 2 years younger and a little better of a distributor while Oladipo is a better defender and more explosive. Bottom line is that the Nets gave up a very useful bench scorer... but that may be ok as I suspect the Nets may not need much bench scoring as I think they will try to have one of the their big three on the floor at all times.

The head scratching part to me is Cleveland's side of the deal. The Cavs sent Milwaukee's '22 first rounder (not worth much as the Bucks will be picking at the end of the first round), their '24 second rounder (who cares?), and Dante Exum (barely a rotation player) out in the deal... and they got back Jarrett Allen and Taurean Prince. Prince is fine, a rotation guy but not someone who really moves the needle. But how on Earth did the Cavs get Allen in this deal?!?! He's 22 years old and averages a double-double with nice rim protection. I think he's probably one of the 5 best young (under 25) centers in the league. It is not at all difficult to project him making an all-star team at some point in his career. And he is under team control on a favorable contract for a couple more years. A week ago, Allen had 19 and 18 with 3 steals and 2 blocks in a rout of Utah while utterly dominating his matchup with Rudy Gobert. How did Cleveland get him for Exum and a late first round pick?!?! What the !#^@& is happening here?

-Jason "There must be something that I missed... some asset that Cleveland sent out that makes this make sense. I just cannot understand it. The Cavs must have naked pictures of the Nets GM to get this deal" Evans

I agree that this deal baffles me, and I am not here to mount a hot take on why it's somehow a good deal. But, I have been hearing more and more discussions on NBA podcasts and the like about the seaming declining value placed on draft picks. Sean Marks has proven himself to be an astute GM as he pulled the Nets from the abyss and rebuilt the franchise in the wake of Prokhorov/Billy King (ouch) era when they made trades like this one. I can only guess that he feels like he can rebuild quickly, the same way he did last time, if this swing at the championship fails spectacularly within a few years. I think some GMs now feel like there is enough undervalued talent on other teams and outside the NBA to make draft picks less of a premium, especially if they aren't high lottery picks.

[JasonEvans]

I agree that this deal baffles me, and I am not here to mount a hot take on why it's somehow a good deal. But, I have been hearing more and more discussions on NBA podcasts and the like about the seaming declining value placed on draft picks. Sean Marks has proven himself to be an astute GM as he pulled the Nets from the abyss and rebuilt the franchise in the wake of Prokhorov/Billy King (ouch) era when they made trades like this one. I can only guess that he feels like he can rebuild quickly, the same way he did last time, if this swing at the championship fails spectacularly within a few years. I think some GMs now feel like there is enough undervalued talent on other teams and outside the NBA to make draft picks less of a premium, especially if they aren't high lottery picks.

I very much agree with the underlined. Once you get outside of the first 5-7 picks in a draft, you are throwing darts and hoping you get lucky. I mean, we routinely see 2nd round picks and undrafted free agents who turn out to have vastly better careers than even guys taken in the back half of the lottery.

But your odds of finding a difference-making player go up dramatically in the first half of the lottery. Virtually all the best players in the league were high draft picks. And when you consider the likelihood that the Nets traded multiple top 5 picks... well that's a lot to give up.

Look at last year's All-NBA teams and where those players were drafted:

1st team: Lebron (#1), Giannis (#15), AD (#1), Harden (#3), Luka (#3)
2nd team: Kawhi (#15), Siakam (#27), Jokic (#41), Lillard (#6), Paul (#4)
3rd team: Butler (#30), Tatum (#3), Gobert (#27), Simmons (#1), Westbrook (#4)

So, of the 15 best players in the league last year, 9 of them were top 6 draft picks. These are the difference-makers. These are the guys who can lead you to a title. Yeah, it is possible to strike oil and land one of them outside of the lottery, but your odds are much much much higher with a top half of the lottery pick. And I truly believe the Rockets just picked up at least 2 of those (plus a mess of other assets).

With no draft assets, no cap space, and aging stars who can go elsewhere are free agents over the next few years, is there really any way the Nets are not just godawful in 4 years?

-Jason "all three of these stars are only under team control for two seasons... they have player options for the 22-23 season... so the team does not even have long-term hold onto them" Evans

[brevity]

The Onion: Charles Barkley Blasts Today’s Fragile NBA Players Who Can’t Just Play Through Covid Like He Did

“Back in our day, we were tough, and we were always out there on the floor, no matter whether we had Covid or how bad our Covid was,” said Barkley, recalling a 1994 game with the Phoenix Suns when most of the team came down with Covid in the first half and they still held on to beat the Utah Jazz.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but this is so him. I wish I could quote the whole damn thing.

barkleymask.jpg

[kshepinthehouse]

I very much agree with the underlined. Once you get outside of the first 5-7 picks in a draft, you are throwing darts and hoping you get lucky. I mean, we routinely see 2nd round picks and undrafted free agents who turn out to have vastly better careers than even guys taken in the back half of the lottery.

But your odds of finding a difference-making player go up dramatically in the first half of the lottery. Virtually all the best players in the league were high draft picks. And when you consider the likelihood that the Nets traded multiple top 5 picks... well that's a lot to give up.

Look at last year's All-NBA teams and where those players were drafted:

1st team: Lebron (#1), Giannis (#15), AD (#1), Harden (#3), Luka (#3)
2nd team: Kawhi (#15), Siakam (#27), Jokic (#41), Lillard (#6), Paul (#4)
3rd team: Butler (#30), Tatum (#3), Gobert (#27), Simmons (#1), Westbrook (#4)

So, of the 15 best players in the league last year, 9 of them were top 6 draft picks. These are the difference-makers. These are the guys who can lead you to a title. Yeah, it is possible to strike oil and land one of them outside of the lottery, but your odds are much much much higher with a top half of the lottery pick. And I truly believe the Rockets just picked up at least 2 of those (plus a mess of other assets).

With no draft assets, no cap space, and aging stars who can go elsewhere are free agents over the next few years, is there really any way the Nets are not just godawful in 4 years?

-Jason "all three of these stars are only under team control for two seasons... they have player options for the 22-23 season... so the team does not even have long-term hold onto them" Evans

I think the Nets would have been better off keeping Lavert, Dinwiddie and Allen together.

[SouthernDukie]

I think the Nets would have been better off keeping Lavert, Dinwiddie and Allen together.

Duh. Seriously, there's no rational argument that the one of James Harden is better than the three of Dinwiddie, Lavert and Allen. Just no sane argument. The Nets were fools for making that trade.

[ice-9]

First of all, dwinwidie is still on the nets. Second, the argument isn't harden vs lavert + allen but harden + a replacement vs lavert + allen.

I don't think I would have done the trade either -- the number of picks given seem too much -- but "no sane argument" is just hyperbole.

[roywhite]

Watched a good part of the Lakers vs Pelicans which the Lakers won 112-95

Zion had 21 pts and 11 rebounds, Ingram had 20 points, but the Pelicans are just not getting much offense from the remaining starters or bench.

https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=401267347

[Troublemaker]

The problem with the trade is that the Nets gave up everything -- all their tradeable assets -- and so it makes it very difficult to improve their defense, for example. Just going by common sense, the only scenario where it's okay to trade everything is if after the trade, you know you have a great, championship-level closing five plus three more guys who are for sure quality playoff rotation guys. (And even then, you'd have to pray for no injuries...). As is, the Nets gutted their depth and have no idea who their closing five and their playoff rotation will be. It's a stunningly bad trade. Somewhere in this thread, I believe I actually posted the Nets were too competent to make this trade -- whoops.

The other thing is that if the Nets were willing to give up so much, they probably would've been better off trading for Bradley Beal and keeping an asset or two. Imagine getting Beal and keeping Jarrett Allen, for example. The difference between Harden and Beal isn't *that* much, if anything at all. (Beal is averaging 35 ppg through the early part of this season, fyi).

The only thing that can save the Nets is the buyout market later in the season. Harden going to the Nets *is* a signal to veteran ring-chasers that this is one of the three destinations or so (the two L.A. teams as well) to flock to. But who knows how robust that buyout market is going to be? Will a quality 3-and-D player emerge? A center that can close? And will the Nets get them instead of the competition? It's all a roll of a dice. Again, Brooklyn should've been dealing in much more certainty about their roster after this kind of trade where they give up everything.

[JasonEvans]

The other thing is that if the Nets were willing to give up so much, they probably would've been better off trading for Bradley Beal and keeping an asset or two. Imagine getting Beal and keeping Jarrett Allen, for example. The difference between Harden and Beal isn't *that* much, if anything at all. (Beal is averaging 35 ppg through the early part of this season, fyi).

I feel like Levert, two #1s, and a pick swap or two would have gotten Beal. That would make your closing lineup Kyrie, Beal, Harris, KD, and Allen... that's a devastatingly good team.

[SouthernDukie]

First of all, dwinwidie is still on the nets. Second, the argument isn't harden vs lavert + allen but harden + a replacement vs lavert + allen.

I don't think I would have done the trade either -- the number of picks given seem too much -- but "no sane argument" is just hyperbole.

Hold the phone, my friend. I was responding to another post expressing the view that keeping Lavert, Allen & Dinwiddie together was better than breaking that trio up for Harden. And Spencer still being on the team (but unavailable for the remainder of this season) doesn’t change the fact that those three will not be together going forward.

As for whether “no sane argument” is hyperbolic, I’ll leave that to others. I don’t believe it is, especially when you factor in the ages of all four players. Kyrie’s sage must have seeped thru all the walls at Nets HQ. That’s the only way the deal could appear sane, imho.

[Billy Dat]

The Ringer's Jonathan Tjarks takes a shot at explaining why these teams are going all in and trading their futures for right now
https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/1...n-nets-rockets