Monthly Archives: July 2014

The Nets have announced Lionel Hollins as their new head coach.  A few thoughts on some of his comments from the presser, as well as Billy’s. Some of these are direct quotes, some paraphrases.

Billy on Lionel: “in going through it last year . . . it made it easier this time to be able to do it quick.”  —  There were reports last year that Billy was denied Memphis’ permission to speak with Lionel, and Billy always mentioned doing homework on many guys.  That tells me that Hollins was a primary target last year, which helps explain how this happened so quickly.

Billy on Memphis and Lionel: “the development of Conley and Randolph, and the discipline of the team.”  — It is definitely intriguing to Billy that Lionel developed talent in Memphis, and particularly helped Randolph rebound from the dumps (read: Deron).  While Hollins is dinged by some for poor player development, the only 2 examples are OJ Mayo and Ed Davis: both of whom have actually regressed after leaving Hollins.

Billy on the Decision: Discussed Lionel as an old school ball coach, referenced people Lionel referenced, like Cotton Fitzsimmons, as people he respects. Discussed it “feeling right,” before giving ownership a call.  It seemed clear to me that Billy is extremely comfortable with Lionel and that this is his decision, his type of man and coach.  He did not seem as comfortable with Kidd who seemed forced on him at least in part by ownership.  This feels more like Billy made a decision and sold ownership on it.

Hollins on Contact with Players: He reached out to Deron but let him relax with his family, he has not talked with Joe or Kevin, and called reaching Paul “premature,” citing it as Billy’s job  to deal with a free agent.  He later omitted Paul from the team’s nucleus.  I am not worried about Lionel’s lack of contact.  Between interviews, getting back to people with congratulatory remarks, making arrangements with jobs, interviews, etc, he’s barely had time to talk to players, and apparently has only spoken to one.  As for Paul, Lionel was sure to say he’s not here to be a GM, which was of course critical after how Jason left.  That Lionel mentioned it being premature to talk with Paul because it’s Billy’s job is no source of concern, and I take his omission of Paul from the nucleus in the same light.

Hollins on Deron: “When you’re not healthy you can’t be the player you want to be . . . and then once you’re healthy you have to have your conditioning.” – Clearly Deron has been hobbled.  But it was interesting that Lionel also jabbed at his conditioning.  Lionel come’s across as a coach’s coach, and men like him have a keen sense of whether a guy is out of shape.  If it’s even slight, they’ll notice it.  Lionel coached against Deron in Utah, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, and watched him play this year: if Deron is lagging with his conditioning, he knows it. The Lionel-Deron dynamic appears poised for a clash at some point. The difference between Lionel and Avery? Lionel doesn’t have to beg Avery to stay with the Nets. And Deron has lost clout, capital, and reputation as compared to that time period.  Look for Lionel to exert the iron fist. Hopefully Deron can handle it.

Lionel on Prokhorov: He talked multiple times of Mikhail’s resources to win, his desire to win, the new practice facility, and again, the word resources.  Lionel left Memphis, and during his clash with ownership and management retorted about its frugality, saying that you can’t have “champagne on beer money.” Take Lionel’s adulation for Mikhail’s desire to spend, together with the Boston trade (picks for older guys making big money), together with the Thornton deal (an expiring for a bad 2 year contract with a partial guarantee in year 3), and the rumors that the team does not want to spend anymore just don’t add up, in regards to Pierce and in regards to the team generally.

Lionel on the Personnel: “you can never have too many shooters.” – Perhaps a clue the Nets will look for more of that as they fill the roster.

Lionel on his Family: that he is soon to be an “empty nester” and hopes to enjoy the city with his wife as a contender is developed.  That made it sound like here looks to be here for the long haul, as he and his wife enjoy New York.

Lionel on Style, and Memphis “Grit n Grind”: He mentioned that he wants to play to a team’s strengths and that style is discussed too much.  He said, paraphrased, “I want to win more than anything . . . when we find what works that is what we’ll do.  I did not come to Memphis wanting to play that way but it worked for them so that’s what I did.”  — Seemed to indicate that he is in no way married to any style.  Did he run a slow paced offense based on the post in Memphis? Sure. He also had little team speed and 2 burly, punishing bigs: the style suited Memphis.  He in no way feels constrained to bringing that here and seems flexible to doing what suits this roster, not necessarily what he did in Memphis.

Lionel on the Lakers as related to Paul Pierce in my Opinion: “I’m all about who wants me.”  — People want to be wanted.  Maybe Hollins would have enjoyed LA, enjoyed living there and coaching Kobe, perhaps Melo, or their future acquisitions.  But people want to feel wanted, the Nets made him feel wanted, and he’s here.  They need to do that with Paul.

 

One General Remark: Lionel clearly takes no B.S.  Everyone who wanted a coach willing to yell, willing to display his authority, willing to push the roster to the limit and put his stamp on them: you’ve got your man.

 

As you all likely know, the Nets are potential players in a three team deal with the Cleveland Cavaliers, in a deal in which the Nets would receive Jarrett Jack. How will this deal work? That requires looking at 2 recent, likely similar Utah Jazz deals.

Last summer, the Warriors sent the Jazz the long, bad contracts of Richard Jefferson and Andris Biedrins, along with two first round picks, for Kevin Murphy’s nonguaranteed contract. This allowed the Warriors cap space for Andre Iguodala.

This summer, the Jazz made a similar deal, acquiring Steve Novak’s brutal contract and a second round pick, from the Raptors for Diante Garrett’s nonguaranteed deal. This deal allows the Raptors to be players in 2015 free agency.

What’s happening in these deals for the Jazz? Think logically. The Jazz are rebuilding. As a rebuilding franchise, they care about stockpiling picks and assets for their future. They are not looking into signing free agent talent, and hamstringing their cap. Paying a Luol Deng, a Trevor Ariza, a Paul Pierce is not of import to them. Their goal is to add youth, add picks to the roster.

Which is precisely what the Warriors and Raptors allowed the Jazz to do the last two summers. Last summer, the Jazz figured “we are not signing any free agents. This cap space is just sitting here. Rather than sign random players, let’s take advantage of a team looking to dump salary. But hey, we won’t just let you dump salary here as some salary dump wasteland. Let’s charge them two first round draft picks.” So the Jazz, rather than pay marginal, no impact free agents last summer, charged the Warriors two first round picks to swallow their bad contracts. They replicated that work with the Novak deal this summer.

As for Thornton and Jack? The same will likely apply to the mystery third team we all seek to identify. Per Chris Broussard and Adrian Wojnarowski, the Cavaliers hope to shed Jack’s contract — not for 2015 cap space, but for cap space NOW, to make an effort at signing LeBron. The Nets do not offer that, as if they take Jack’s salary on, they must send out salary (i.e.: send out Marcus Thornton). However, if the Cavs and Nets find a third team with cap space — one who can swallow Thornton’s contract without taking salary on — they could route Jack to Brooklyn, Thornton to that team, and then Cleveland could shed Jack. Cleveland would receive a nonguaranteed deal from that team (like Murphy and Garrett above) — and just waive that player on arrival.

Is Thornton overpaid at nearly $9 million? Sure. But the lottery team receiving Thornton does not care — they’re not trying to win today, and it’s not like they will use that cap space to actually sign anyone meaningful. What’s in it for them? Like Utah, they’ll charge the Cavaliers a pick. Now, they see it as a win. Rather than sign random players to $9 million total, they add Thornton, and get a draft pick for their trouble.

The Nets? They likely would not get a pick here.  The third team DEFINITELY would not convey one.  Could they get one from Cleveland? That is possible: given their LeBron desperation, I could certainly envision them dumping a second pick in this deal.  But I would not bank on it?

The mystery team? Impossible to predict the team, but think a lottery bound team in complete rebuilding mode, which is replete with cap space, and clearly not spending right now.

 

What Does this Mean for the Nets

It means that a Thornton for Jack trade, which has been reported at multiple different times since prior to the draft, is beginning to look more likely. Which begs the question: why do this trade?

First, the obvious: Livingston is gone. The Nets have a clear need for a second point guard; they like using Deron with another off guard and that’s tough to do if Jorge Gutierrez is your best reserve point.

Second: the Nets, as I have stated a few times before, have one cap exception of $3.3 million dollars, and are otherwised confined to minimum salary deals. They will be hard pressed to find a better point guard than Jack, especially if they use the mini midlevel on Bogdanovic, which they should given the lack of talent available at the price (and lack of upside).

Third, trading Thornton for an upgrade (on a worse contract) is one of the more obvious ways for the Nets to improve. They can trade Deron Brook or Joe, but in all three cases you’re talking about a huge shakeup to the roster. Paul Pierce if traded is likely at a loss. Kevin Garnett: likely to play for the Nets or retire, as that contract is not being dealt. Mirza Teletovic? He’s worth the $3 million he makes, so it’s unlikely he fetches back a better player, given salaries must be matched in deals.

That leaves Thornton. As a player on a one year deal, the Nets can improve by dealing him for a player on a two year deal, who is better, but on a worse contract: Jack fits the bill. Looking around the league, not many players fit the bill. Martell Webster in Washington? If the Nets bring over Bojan and keep Pierce, they have Kirilenko and seem to have enough forwards of that ilk. Thornton for Kevin Martin? Why take on post 2016 salary. Something bigger? Thornton, Markel Brown, and the 2015 second the Nets got for Jason Kidd, for Jeff Green? That does not feel like enough for Green, but Green is a nice player (albeit overpaid). Feel like Ainge will ask for more than we can afford. Thornton, Teletovic, Gutierrez, and the Bucks second for Eric Gordon? The Pelicans are in win now mode and likely do not devalue Gordon into floatsam.

What does Jack Offer

Jack played quality basketball under Mark Jackson in Golden State. He floated through this past season, but when he’s focused, he’s a very valuable piece. He was viewed as a big loss for the Warriors, and legitimately impacted numerous critical games for the Warriors. He’s better at his best than Thornton at his. Thornton was arguably better last year, but given their track records, this feels like a buy low sell high type of transaction for Brooklyn.

In the 2013 Offseason, the Nets came off a 49-33 season and round 1 playoff loss, with a roster that had no financial flexibility through 2016.  Management could have decided that such a roster should not be made more expensive: let’s stay the course with this expensive team. It could have decided “we’re not on course to win a title despite being so expensive, let’s rebuild.”

 

Here’s the thing: the Nets made NEITHER choice. The Nets decided that they could turn a good team into a great team, by dealing three first round draft picks for Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Jason Terry.  I repeat: the Nets dealt 3 cost controlled first round picks, two of which are owed $0 next season (2016/2018 picks), for the rights to 2 players in their mid thirties who make 8 figures, and a third player in his mid thirties.

 

That is clearly a move in which you have decided to go All In.  The tag line for the season was we’re in.

 

All of that brings me to a few thoughts, as rumors swirl concerning the Clippers and Paul Pierce.

 

I. The Roster at this Moment: What are the Nets getting on this Market?

 

The salary cap is $67 million. A team over the cap has nothing to spend on outside free agents except cap exceptions. A team that uses the midlevel exception (around $5 million) is hard capped at $81 million. A team that uses the mini midlevel (around $3.3 million) can spend beyond that. The Nets owe $88,524,090 to 9 players: that drops to $76,524,090 and 8 players if KG Retires: Deron, Joe, Kirilenko, KG, Brook, Mirza, Thornton, Plumlee, Teague.  Minimum salary adds take up $915,243 in cap space: $915,243 x 6 is about $5.5 million in minimum deals.

 

Translation: the Nets can spend $3.3 million/year on one non Net – including Bogdanovic, and can only pay the minimum to other non Nets.

 

Now, with that, let’s take a look at some of the deals struck on this market.

Jodie Meeks got $6 million.

Darren Collison and Chris Kaman got $5 million.

CJ Miles and Ben Gordon got $4.5 million.

Thabo Sefolosha got $4 million.

 

That’s not every signing but the point is clear: $3.3 million is not buying the Nets much on this market.  Period.  People need to let go of the idea that a player of Paul Pierce’s caliber is replaceable with $3.3 million, when the market clearly shows what level of player is available at that price: players even lesser than the men above. There is simply no way the Nets sign a free agent better than Pierce, I guess, unless Bojan Bogdanovic is better than Pierce in his rookie year. Given Pierce’s value last year and Bojan’s NBA resume of 0 games, it’s hard to bank on that.  And even if you do bank on that, keeping Pierce would not swallow the Nets midlevel exception. The exception does not obtain a replacement for Pierce by definition, as it’s available whether he stays for $40 million, or walks for nothing.

 

II. Who Uncorked the Narrative That the Nets need to Save Money Now?

 

Someone needs to explain this one to me. Put your thinking cap on.  The Nets had three first round picks at their disposal last summer. First rounders make between $1.1 and $5.5 million per as rookies, with slight escalations, remaining that cheap for about three-four years. The Nets traded players that young, players that cheap, for three players in their mid thirties who made about $32 million combined last year.  They deliberately made themselves older and more expensive, in the belief that was a smart course to take to get closer to contention: and I agreed with them!

 

Yet in spite of that, some are floating the idea – it has not come from the Nets directly but the idea is just hanging around in cyberspace – that the Nets should trade Pierce as a means of getting younger.  To which my response is simple: WHAT?!

 

If the goal was to stay younger, stay cheaper, you don’t do the deal for Pierce and Garnett in the first place: as the deal makes you distinctly older and more expensive.   The Nets required KG exercise his option for 2015 as part of the deal, and did it knowing that to retain the pieces for over 1 year that they would have to pay Pierce this summer.  But the goal is to get younger? That’s so obviously not the case. And it leads to one of several possible conclusions:

 

1: the conjencture out there is simply inaccurate, misrepresentative of the Nets actual intentions.

2: the Nets are hopeful this is something the fan base will buy into, believing that we all think so short term, with the inability to evaluate the long term or evaluate context, that we can’t see through this.

3: the Nets actually have made this decision. Were that the case, it would show that they lack a plan, lack any sort of direction or actual vision with their moves.

 

I do not believe option 3 is the correct choice here, and certainly hope it is not.  My bet would be on option 1, with a hedge on option 2.

 

III. It’s Not the Time to be cheap with Paul Pierce.

 

The Nets knew they could not lose Gerald Wallace after dealing their 2012 pick for him: so they paid up. They knew they needed a piece Deron would respect: so they assumed Joe Johnson’s mammoth deal. They knew they needed Deron pack: they outbid the Mavericks by $30 million rather than play the market. THEY added Kevin to the Paul deal: so much for the goal of frugality.

 

And yet, NOW is the time? When they must keep Pierce because there is no suitable option out there to retain him, NOW is suddenly the time to stand on principle and keep him?  I get that at some point the Nets cannot do this forever, but choosing to play hardball now, when they risk losing Pierce and getting nothing back for him, is not the time.

 

People want to feel wanted.  They want to feel like they are a priority.  The Nets have the ability to pay Pierce, really whatever they want.  Are they really going to offer him a reported $6-$8 million on the market I described above: the market where Jodie Meeks got $6 million? Make a handsome offer. If he rejects, because his heart’s not here? I guess there’s nothing you can do, and you move on.  But do not let the reason he leaves be, in any way, that the lynchpin of your offseason felt slighted by your offers.

 

IV. There is No Trade Out there That the Nets win, in all likelihood

 

Paul Pierce will be 37 to start the season.  Nobody is going to deal for him what the Nets did. And nobody is going to deal the Nets a better player than Paul Pierce.

 

V. The Clippers: What to Make of the Rumors?

 

First things first, let’s make this clear: As an unrestricted free agent, Pierce can sign anywhere. He can sign into cap space, or to a team over the cap into an exception. The Nets cannot match the offer, or stop the process. So if Pierce wants out, he is not going to be a Net next year.

 

So what could be happening with all the Clipper rumors.

 

I. Pierce wants to be there, so this was initiated by the Clippers

 

Given some of the reports, this could be a possibility.  Billy and Jeff unable to agree on a number, Doc talking to Paul, and trade rumors.  The Clippers leverage: Paul can sign here outright so you have to deal with us. The catch? Given the Hawes signing, unless Hawes is sign and traded to the Clips, which requires they convey Crawford or Dudley, or Barnes + Bullock, and that the Cavs accept this offer, Hawes occupies the Clippers midlevel exception: their leverage on Pierce. Without it, Pierce cannot walk there.

 

Which makes this all interesting: given Cleveland’s resistance towards taking salary and goal of cutting it, why would they do a sign and trade with the Clippers to send them Hawes, and assume Clipper salary?

 

II. The Nets are Driving This

 

Perhaps the Nets think that this will be smart.  Perhaps they believe Doc will overpay for Paul given his admiration of him.  But do we really want a high usage low efficiency streak shooter in Crawford for a bedrock of our roster?  Are you seriously telling me the Nets dealt a first round pick to have Pierce for a season – all that talk of leadership – to deal him for Jamal Crawford? Especially when Crawford wants an extension – how does that reconcile with “getting cheaper.”

 

There’s also talk of getting JJ Redick in a deal. Would Doc pay that much for Pierce? If he does, of course that’s probably the best Brooklyn can do.  But again, Pierce was such a key cog to this roster.  His plus minus and the net rating data was excellent. He scores, he played the 4 which opened our success up.  Redick is much better than many believe but still is not as good as Paul right now.

 

Some will say Redick will have a longer future than Paul. But the Nets plan on reconstructing in 2016: at that point Paul will be gone, and while Redick is useful, cap space may be more valuable than his $7.4 million especially considering the goal of pitching players like Kevin Durant on creating a star laden Brooklyn roster.  So in reality, their respective values beyond 2016 is not a huge factor here.  What will help the Nets most in their 2016 pitch is the state of the roster: Paul will produce more wins from now until then than will JJ, and keeping him will show an air of credibility that would be helpful to showcase to stars.

 

So given the Clips pursuit of Hawes which could hurt their Paul acquisition ability, and the leaks of what the Nets want in a deal, it is possible this is Nets initiated: but I do not support it.

 

III. It’s Fueled by Jeff Schwartz as a leverage play

 

Billy King has played hardball with Pierce.  There are reports of hoping he takes $6-8 million due to Nets salary issues: those could easily be Net related leaks to pressure Paul into a deal.  So how does Pierce counter?  His agent leaks that seven teams are interested (yes, this is a sourced report from Marc Stein who is excellent. The source is clearly some human being.  I am hypothesizing that the source could be Schwartz).

 

As for the Clipper rumors? What better leverage play from Schwartz. My man is going to go play for his old coach … unless you pony up.  Billy went public with the fact that the sides have distinct numbers in mind. All of this could easily be Schwartz leaking proposals with the Clips to the media to get Billy to pony up, and Billy countering with satisfactory proposals that would result in his not ponying up. There’s a reason so many sourced reporters — even of the best reporters — do not turn out to be accurate.  Much information is leaked to the media by teams and agents — that’s how the media reports information to you — and by design, that information varies in its level of truth.

 

My point in all of this: NOBODY can say with definitive certainty what Pierce intends to do.  If you’re reading this or discussing this with me, you probably are not Paul Pierce or Jeff Schwartz.  Therefore, you are not 100% sure what is happening and what will happen.  Some sourced reports, and some tea leaves, tend to indicate one thing, some tend to indicate something else.  We simply will not have an answer until we have an answer.

 

IV. Stop Arguing That the Nets Need to Get Something Back If Paul is Gone

 

There is no bigger strawman in all of this than saying the Nets need something back for Pierce if he wants to leave: everyone agrees, and therefore arguing against the nonexistent position that we should let him walk is a strawman.

 

The argument I have made is the following: the Nets SHOULD want Pierce back, because the alternative is worse. And the Nets made deals and transactions demonstrating a commitment to Pierce and spending and gaining veteran leadership, so to argue they should let him go as a means of saving money and getting younger is wholly flawed. (I made those arguments in more length above).

 

V. The Rest of the Offseason: a Paul Pierce sized Holding Pattern

 

While the Nets have much work to do, and reportedly hope to make some roster changes, Pierce is clearly the holdup on a lot of what they do. They may keep him, or acquire a player for him who plays a different position.  How to use the mini midlevel of $3.3 million.  If Paul leaves is it Bogdanovic? Does that change if Paul stays? Is it someone else who Paul impacts? Does this impact the Jack trade? Do they trade Thornton for a forward instead of Paul leaves?  Paul is the Nets’ biggest domino, holding up the Nets’ other transactions, as barring a Deron Brook or Joe trade, the rest of their moves will focus on lesser players than Paul.