Brooklyn's Beat

The Paul Pierce show finally ended in the second round of the playoffs, but not before he hit the Nets where it hurts (with bulletin board material), the Wizards swept a Raptors team that was slightly favored, and the Wizards came within a Nene rebound, and Pierce’s finger, from knocking the Hawks out of the playoffs.

The Wizards and Nets were both lottery teams before the Nets came to Brooklyn.  The Wizards, however, are better than the Nets today, and set up better for their future.  What can the Nets learn from Pierce’s new team?

DEFENSE, DEFENSE, DEFENSE

The NBA game has changed, significantly, but there is one constant: defense wins championships.  Steph Curry three point barrages are awesome, and help develop the common belief that the Warriors win by simply launching threes, but they ranked #1 in the NBA in defense this season, and their real strength is the ability to bottle offenses up.

The Wizards are a popular team because of John Wall and Bradley Beal, but was ranked just 19th in the NBA offensively this season, according to NBA.com’s stats page.  Their bread and butter was their defense, which was the league’s 5th ranked unit.

9 of the league’s top 11 defenses made the playoffs and the two outcasts — the Hornets and Pacers — were anemic offensively.  In Wall, Pierce, Nene, Gortat, and Porter, the Wizards’ roster is chock full of good defenders.  That is something the Nets should look to model after.

The Nets defensive rating this year was a 105.0, which ranked a paltry 24th.  When Alan Anderson, their best defender, was on the court, that number surged to 101.3, a much more respectable 10th in the league (if extrapolated over the course of the season).

One primary Nets issue, even during their end of season surge?  Deron, Joe, and Bojan are minus defenders, and Lopez is an improving defender, but not a good one.  Young is a decent defender, but struggles guarding players with size, and misses some rotations.  The Nets simply do not employ enough plus defenders in their nucleus to challenge for anything meaningful.

The Nets should look to upgrade their defense, a la the Wizards.  One thing which helps Brooklyn?  Traditional and counting stats, like points per game, often become the barometer for the market — the league is behind the curve on paying for defense.  Anderson and Shaun Livingston, strong defenders for Brooklyn the past two seasons, were on bargain basement deals.  DeMarre Carroll signed for $2.5 million per before his explosion.

The Nets can, and should, look to upgrade their defensive personnel.  Assuming they keep Lopez and Young and cannot find new homes for Deron and Joe this summer (all plausible), there will be enough talent on the offensive side of the ball to put points up: the Nets offense ranked 9th in the league after the trade deadline (and their defense was 23rd in that time).  Upgrading the defensive personnel will not be easy, but should be a focus in Brooklyn.

TEAM BUILDING: THE RECENT COMMITMENT TO YOUTH IS NICE, BUT DO NOT BE AFRAID TO BE BOLD

The Nets seem to have pledged to continue getting younger and more athletic, in the wake of their mistake in Boston.  However, the Nets need to allow flexibility in executing their plan.  Becoming a champion is not about winning the headline, creating a plan that is marketable, or the like: it is about being smart.  And part of being smart requires changing and adjusting the plan with time. Shifting gears, with shifts in player evaluations, and league wide trends, is central to building a winner.

Bojan Bogdanovic, Mason Plumlee, and other young Nets are not bad pieces.  Several could develop into 4th or 5th starters on contenders, or key ingredients on a contender’s bench.

Should the Nets target trades to get rid of their youth? Of course not.  However, the Nets cannot rebuild, and essentially have to build through free agency and the trade market for the foreseeable future, given their pick situation.  If the right opportunity to trade any of the Nets’ youth comes about, Brooklyn does need to take advantage.

Teams tend to overrate youth on the trade market, and trades for quality veterans often can be had on the basis of potential.  For all the Nets talk of stocking the roster with youth, not a single Net projects as a star, let alone a superstar.  Again, the Nets should not be seeking out ways to get rid of their young players.  However, the Nets should not focus on selling the fanbase on their low average age, either: if an opportunity comes about, and the opportunity makes sense, the Nets should strike.

Like the Wizards did.  When a team drafts players of Wall and Beal’s caliber, the expectation is that they will surround them with other young talent.  The Wizards switched gears, however, when their other youth struggled.  They traded JaVale McGee for Nene, in a deal Washington won by a landslide.  Armed with the 14th pick in the 2014 draft, Washington traded the pick to Pheonix for Marcin Gortat — the pick became T.J. Warren, who has yet to produce in Phoenix.

The Nets likely should not deal Bogdanovic, or Markel Brown.  They need cost controlled production because of their awful cap situation.  But teams do overvalue youth at times in deals, and you can find very good players at modest prospect based prices on the market.

The Wizards did.  And maybe the Nets should too.

Deron Williams has been an epic disappointment in Brooklyn.  You can argue about the reasons. Health? Drive? Attitude? Bad luck? Who knows.  The bottom line, however, is that Deron has been a Net for 4.5 years, 3 of which the Nets wanted to win, and he has been an enormous letdown.

However, no matter how good or bad a player, how rewarding or disappointing, how likable or mopey, how fun or depressing, all decisions need to be made with great thought and care.  And what the Nets should do with Deron is an open question with no obvious answer.

The verdict here: the Nets should explore Deron trades aggressively.  If a trade helping the future salary picture comes about, do it, but try to keep Bogdanovic and Markel.  If not, stretch him in 2016.

For starters, while Deron is polarizing, the Nets did play better when he was on the court than when he sat.  When Deron was on the court, the Nets had a +.1 Net rating this season: such a figure would have ranked 17th over the course of the season, and essentially would have extrapolated out to a .500 record.  When Deron sat, the Nets had a brutal -6.7 net rating, which would have ranked 26th in the NBA.   Were the Nets to jettison Deron without compensation, they would be distinctly worse off, from a record standpoint.

However, Deron is absurdly overpaid, to be blunt.  His $22,331,135 option on next year’s payroll stands out like a sore thumb, and complicates Brooklyn’s team building efforts.  Lopez and Young are nucleus pieces, but sign them at their market values, and keep Deron, and the 2016 salary space the Nets have is not as large as at first blush.

The ability to have up to $22 million in additional cap space without Deron would be a boon: the Nets could do so much more with that space in 2016 than Deron would provide.  The Nets can also trade Deron for pieces which extend into 2017, but open some (if not all) of that $22 million in eaten space, a la the Deron to Sacramento deal reported by Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo! Sports in December (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources–kings–trade-talks-for-deron-williams-hit-roadblock-with-nets-234509077.html).  In such a deal, the Nets would add $10.8 million of salaries in Collison and Thompson to their summer 2016 payroll: about half of Deron’s salary would wash off the cap.  Is Collison, Thompson, and a player making $11 million on a worth it deal, better than Deron Williams? You can certainly argue in the affirmative.

Another wrinkle in this is that Deron has declined each year since he has been a Net.  What will Deron be in 2017? If he declines some more, that only makes a deal even more appetizing. Lopez’s foot and Plumlee’s strong winter made the Nets understandably hesitant about attaching Plumlee to a Deron deal. Now? Lopez is a huge part of the future and such a deal may make more sense.  Decent youth heading into free agency is not as valuable on the market as may be believed: the acquiring team knows they must pay the player.  If the Nets did not attach Plumlee to Deron, given his rough spring, how much would he even be worth on his own.  At this point, if a team was willing to take on Deron and Plumlee, and provide the Nets some cap relief in 2016 (sending the Nets less future salary than Deron’s $22 million plus, but not no future money), Brooklyn would have to listen.

Trading Deron is not something any fan can mandate, however: there is no market for his services.  That is where the stretch exception comes in.  Were the Nets to stretch Deron next July, 2016, they would owe him $7,443,712 per year from 2016-2017 through 2018-2019.  Under this option, Deron could contribute to the 2015-2016 win column for Brooklyn, likely moreso than pieces dealt for him could, but with the added bonus of doing that and still clearly part of his salary from the 2016 ledger.

However, Deron would eat cap space for years without providing any on court value, and the Nets would get no on court value for him.  Were the Nets to deal Deron now, they would at least get some future value for him, in the form of whatever pieces Deron could bring back.

Essentially, the Nets face multiple courses.  Keep Deron, and let him help next year, but watch him suck $22 million of 2016 cap space.  Trade Deron, and likely harm next year’s team (he’s not bringing talent back), but open some future cap space all the while adding some pieces to the future roster.  Stretch Deron in 2016, which enables Deron aiding the 2015 roster, yet reduces his 2016 summer hit in the way the above trades would.  Or stretch Deron in 2015.  Under that scenario, Deron would be owed $8,674,787 per year through 2020, and the Nets would get nothing for him, but he would be off the team if no trade materialized.

There is something to be said for using the stretch exception now if a trade fails.  Handling Deron’s situation sooner than later helps with the continuity concerns Billy keeps discussing.  Deron is continually in and out of the lineup.  When in the lineup even, his role constantly changes because of his body.  One day he’s game 4 of the playoffs Deron, carrying the team. Another day he cannot stay on the court and Jarrett Jack is the better player. The Nets cannot develop continuity in part because Deron’s bizarre up and down nature (and his injuries) prevent the Nets from playing a steady style.  One day it’s his team. One day he’s the 4th guy off the bench and it’s Brook’s team. If Deron is not part of the plans for the new 2016 and on Nets, the sooner he is off the roster, the quicker you can build that group’s roster, and continuity going forward.

My take, simply, is that a trade is an infinitely better option to stretching Deron.  A trade provides value.  The Nets would be much better served trading Deron and trimming, say, half of his future salary obligation off their books, and actually getting some value back for Deron, than using the stretch exception to trim a similar amount of money off the 2016 payroll, but 1: still owing Deron money beyond 2016, and 2: not getting any value for Deron.

In conclusion, the Nets should try to trade Deron this summer.  Use Plumlee and even Karasev or Jefferson as bait. If a deal comes along where you cut future financial commitments and do not deal a pick, do it. If not, they should keep Deron, then apply the stretch exception next July, 2016. 

Of note in attempting to deal Deron: it will not be easy.  His salary is gargantuan, so the opposing team must send the Nets a ton of salary for Deron.  He eats up cap space in a summer where everyone wants it. He is a point guard, in a league chock full of better and cheaper points.

At the same time, you never know in the NBA.  The untradeable contract does not exist, and the market can work in mysterious ways.  Who had the Wolves gifting Thaddeus Young to the Nets in January?

The formula for a potential Deron deal? Think teams sending the Nets unwanted players.  Think teams with potential weaknesses at point guard. Think smaller markets who perhaps do not believe they can score in free agency, so will look to add talent that is already under contract.

Keep in mind with all of these proposals: they are just speculative proposals.  No source says these deals are available.  And, of course, the Nets could offer any of these deals, only for the opposing team to say no.  With that, here are the deals.

Proposal 1: Deron and Plumlee for Lance Stephenson, Marvin Williams, and Jeff Taylor (in 2 separate trades).

Kemba Walker is talented, and more valuable than Deron Williams, but struggles with his efficiency.  Trading for Deron would allow Walker to split point guard duties, and play more off the ball, where his ability to score and attack the basket could shine through.  If the Hornets saw Deron as a nucleus piece (a third or fourth banana), they may pull the trigger here.  The Nets getting Marvin Williams too is a lot to ask, but there is no other contract on the Hornets roster that makes sense.  And the Hornets’ distaste for Stephenson is well chronicled: while Brooklyn may not want to take a chance on him because he was so awful last season (he cannot shoot in a league built around shooting), he is likely more talented on paper than anyone else the Nets could get for Williams. Tossing in Plumlee would at least provide the Hornets with something of an asset, although they already have young bigs on the roster.

Proposal 2: George Hill, Luis Scola, and Chris Copeland to Brooklyn; Deron, Arron Afflalo, Robin Lopez, and Mason Plumlee to Indiana; and Roy Hibbert and Sergey Karasev to Portland.

The Pacers, according to some reports out there, are hopeful to transition into a smallball attack going forward.  That will require wing depth, and a boost at point guard, which Deron may (or may not) provide over George Hill.  Indiana, in taking Deron’s toxic contract and shipping out Hibbert, adds Afflalo and Deron to their guard rotation, and two cheaper bigs in Lopez and Plumlee to balance out the roster.  Portland chased Hibbert when he was a restricted free agent, and may do this as a gamble that Hibbert reverts back to his form between 2011 and the first half of 2013.  The Nets ditch Deron’s contract, and get Hill, a capable point guard who also defends rather well.

Proposal 3: Darren Collison, Nik Stauskas, Randy Foye, and JJ Hickson to Brooklyn; Deron Williams, Ben McLemore, Sergey Karasev, and a Kings first to Denver; Ty Lawson and Mason Plumlee to Sacramento.

The Nuggets seem fed up with Ty Lawson, and given some recent reports regarding the Mavericks, Lawson seems equally fed up with them.  While they would be assuming Deron’s contract, they would likely hope he could produce reasonably well, and would be ditching Foye and Hickson’s contract, as well as McLemore, an intriguing prospect, and a first rounder from a team that has lost  The Kings are working hard to upgrade their roster surrounding DeMarcus Cousins, and this trade would easily accomplish that.

As for the Nets, they would not be getting much in the way of value here, but Deron does not have any value.  This trade would provide them with two decent reserve guards, a prospect in Stauskas, and Hickson is just a contract.

Proposal 4: Deron and Plumlee to Sacramento for Collison, Jason Thompson, Derrick Williams, and Nik Stauskas

This harkens back to one of the more original Deron rumors.  The Nets would essentially be getting Collison for Deron, and taking on dead weight.  The Kings are known to like Plumlee, but perhaps Brooklyn could pry Stauskas if the Kings take Mason from the Nets.

Have another Deron trade idea? Leave a comment!

“He’s not always there when you call him, but he’s there when you need him.”

Kevin Garnett’s line, giving birth to “Joe Jesus” resonated with the Brooklyn Nets’ fanbase.  And with good reason.  The buzzer beaters against the Bucks in his first season in Brooklyn. The fadeaway jumper over Tayshaun Prince to beat the Pistons in his inaugural season.  The game winner in Phoenix. The buzzer beater over Serge Ibaka that turned the season.  The shotmaking throughout the playoffs.

The 2014 Nets delivered the first playoff series win in Brooklyn history.  Joe Jesus (yea, I’m going with it) was the reason that happened.  He assaulted DeRozan, Ross, and the Raptors wings all series, and memorably served as the Nets well in game 7, hitting bucket after bucket. The Nets needed them all to advance.

Joe has arguably been a disappointment in Brooklyn, to an extent.  If you consider who he was in Atlanta (a clear all star, a 20 point per game scorer who also made plays for others), he has not met expectations.  His scoring numbers are down, his free throw attempts down as well.  He is extremely slow for a wing, and struggles defensively with smaller players, all the while not defending bigs in smallball lineups as well as Paul Pierce did a year ago.

But if we’re judging the Nets marquee acquisitions relative to expectation, Joe Jesus has surely done a lot more for the Nets than Deron Williams.  Some slippage had to be expected when the Nets paid for his age 31-34 seasons.  Joe has been a rock in Brooklyn, and has hit big shot after big shot … after big shot.

Should the Nets trade Joe?  The answer is not clear.  On one hand, Joe’s contract expires next summer.  Trading him will not open a dime of future cap space.  Joe also makes $24,894,863 next season.  In dealing Joe, the Nets would have to take back a roughly comparable amount of salary, so it’s not as though the Nets can use a Joe deal as a means of opening up flexibility to add to the roster in free agency.

Could the Nets deal Joe to a team with cap space, which enables the acquiring team to eat a chunk of Joe’s deal without sending as much money back Brooklyn’s way? Perhaps.  But typically, when teams rent cap space in deals of that sort, they don’t rent it for free, and charge you draft pick compensation (and usually a first rounder). Is it really worth forking over picks to shed Joe’s salary?  And what would the Nets even do with the menial cap space they may be able to create? (the Nets are currently about $8 million under the cap, without retaining any of their free agents.  Retain Lopez and Young, and the Nets will shoot approximately $17-20 million over the cap. No Joe deal in that scenario would open cap space).  Would the Nets even want to use their cap space on any player of value wanting a 2-4 year deal, thereby cutting into the Nets 2016 trove of space?

Essentially, the Nets seem unlikely to benefit from any Joe deal.  A deal assuming future salary hurts.  A deal relinquishing picks hurts.  In all likelihood, no deal opens cap space in 2015, and it is assured that no deal opens space in 2016 given Joe expires that summer. The Nets do not benefit unless the player acquired is better than Joe, or fits the roster better, AND doesn’t further cloud the draft pick or future salary picture.

Which makes me wonder: are the Nets merely exploring a Joe deal in an effort to save money?  If so, I do not endorse that.

I know what the 2011 CBA says.  I understand the luxury tax is wicked, punitive really.  Without delving into detail, the amount of money the Nets could save if a Joe trade brought back a lower salary (be it due to a cap space rental or otherwise) could be substantial.

However, what I also know is that the NBA is in extremely excellent financial health. Franchise values are through the roof.  Teams may lose money in basketball operations, but between ticket, merchandise, advertising, and other revneue, there is plenty of money coming in the door. The Nets, like every other team, benefit tremendously from the new television deal.  And much of the money teams make comes from the fans.  Most fans are not millionaires, sitting at home with money to blow.  Fans work hard, for the most part, to earn their money, and they choose to invest that money in teams like the Nets.  They buy season or game tickets.  Food at games.  Merchandise.

When the Nets (or any team) make a deal that hurts the roster and has no benefit to building a future champion (today or tomorrow), but saves money, the only person benefitting is the team owner.  The trade hurts every fan who invests in the team, and no fan gets a cut of that money.  If a cost cutting deal is made after season ticket renewals, your package isn’t discounted.  The shirt you bought your son, the toy ball you bought your nephew: you’re not getting a percentage back.

Obviously, there are cost cutting deals that help teams, because they open up flexibility for the present or future.  I, of course, love such moves.  But if a move hurts the present, has no impact on the future (or hurts it), and does nothing except save Mikhail Prokhorov’s money? I simply cannot endorse the move.

It may be time for Joe Jesus to go, whether it is this summer or next.  And if it happens, it happens.  But I know I’ll miss screaming “Joeeeeeeeee” at the top of my lungs after a big shot.  I’ll miss Joe Jesus jokes.  And I’ll miss a player who got the Nets further than anyone since Jason Kidd.

So, is there a sensible Joe trade out there?  Let’s take a look at some options.

Proposal One: 

Joe and Mason Plumlee to Charlotte for Lance Stephenson, Marvin Williams, and Gerald Henderson

Exploring deals with Charlotte highlights the problem with trading Joe.  He makes a ton of money, which requires the dealing team to trade a ton of money.  And is any team willing to exchange $24 million in talent for Joe? Something with Charlotte could work if the organization sees Stephenson as a sunk cost, but this is a lot of talent for Charlotte to deal just for Joe and Plumlee.

Proposal Two: 

Joe for Brandon Jennings, Jodie Meeks, and Caron Butler (h/t @shook_jones)

Detroit is one of the more sensible destinations for Joe.  Stan Van Gundy loves Joe Johnson. He did not take the job to oversee a long rebuild, and the Pistons were relatively close to playoff caliber last season. The Pistons are set up front, and found their point guard of the future.  What they lack is a wing, as well as playoff experience among their core (Jackson played in the playoffs as a reserve, but to me, playoff experience connotates playing big minutes, and being responsible for the outcome as a lead player).  Joe would bring much of that to Detroit.  He could help lead their core to the playoffs in 2016, and because his deal expires, he would not affect any of their future plans in building around their core.  Detroit has several mid level salaries among its non core pieces, and could target Joe.

Proposal Three:

Joe to Milwaukee, Mayo and Pachulia to Brooklyn, Ilyasova and two Nets second rounders to Philadelphia, and a heavily protected Sixers second to Milwaukee.

Jason Kidd did like Joe Johnson when he coached in Brooklyn.  This feels unlikely, but is the only way a Joe to Milwaukee deal could work.  Philadelphia would be renting space for picks, which the Nets would be sending them because this deal would present significant savings.

Proposal Four:

Joe and Bojan to Denver for Lawson, Hickson, Arthur, and a trade exception (h/t @adamorrechio)

This is not exactly what Denver would be looking for in a Lawson deal.  However, after all the point guard trades at the deadline, the Nuggets face a similar issue that the Nets face with Deron: the market for point guard’s is thin.  The Nets would be surrendering two starters for Lawson and floatsam, and the deal would not harm Denver’s salary picture while providing a potential nucleus piece.  Denver likely hopes to do better, but can do worse.

Other Notes

Bobby Marks and the Nets parted ways today.  Marks was a strong Assistant GM in Brooklyn, his role in figuring out the complicated CBA machinations of several deals in recent years duly noted.  His departure in the wake of the Joe and Jarrett Jack trade rumors concern me.  The nets need to be spend money if they want to be a successful organization, and not just in the obvious areas.  You need to invest in a diverse front office group so that the GM has a sounding board of smart people.  In analytics.  Sports medicine and science.  Nutrition.  It is hard to build a contender, especially in a conference where LeBron’s free agency decision won the last five titles.  It requires a perfect storm of luck and smarts, and the more you invest, the more likely you are to hit the lottery.

It’s easy to dismiss the Cavs as a creature of good luck. LeBron came home. The move was against all odds. While much has happened since, some of the juicier moves, like the Kevin Love trade, has been a natural offshoot of that. However, much of what Cleveland has done to become a contender are things the Nets can take pages from.
No matter how slim, you miss all the shots you don’t take, so take your chance.

There exists a school of thought that the Nets should not try to get Kevin Durant or some other big fish in 2016 because there seems to be no reason to believe those players will come to Brooklyn.

It’s easy to forget that any talk of LeBron going back to Cleveland before Pat Riley’s now infamous post 2014 Finals presser was met with ridicule. The Cavs were laughed at for even trying. How’d that work out?

You truly never know what will happen in the NBA. Who had LeBron becoming a Cav again? CP3 becoming a Clipper, or better yet becoming a Clipper after a Laker deal was vetoed? Or the Lakers missing on all big free agents since 2011? Or the Warriors becoming a juggernaut.

The Cavs held out hope. They took a shot. The Nets absolutely need plan B C and D given the likelihood of Plan A working in 2016 is slim. But they still need to take their shot.

Be creative: don’t paint yourself into a corner

The Cavs are stereotyped as a poor organization graced by their hometown hero, but that is not fair. Teams are always looking to dump players, or are desperate for players and willing to fork over picks. Wait the market out and take advantage. In dire straights and needing to make a playoff push the Thunder were willing to gamble on Dion Waiters, and Cleveland got a first round pick for a player not in their plans.

When teams are opening cap space they are willing to unload dead salary for anything. And when a team knows a restricted free agent is not in their plans, he suddenly has no value. Enter the Knicks. Cleveland added 2 key contributors in Smith and Shumpert at little cost, then used the Waiters pick to get Mozgov.

Through all that — none of which was created by LeBron, Cleveland constructed a deep and versatile roster capable of playing many ways in the playoffs.

Similarly Nets do not need to use ALL of their cap space in 2016. Only sign players who make sense. If there is space left over, so what. Use it to rent players in deals. As payment for renting those players, force teams to fork over picks.

The Nets will not be signing the King in 2016. But they can learn from the creativity of the King’s men.

As the Nets offseason continues, let’s take a look at lessons the Nets can learn from, of all teams, the team that knocked them out of the playoffs: the Atlanta Hawks.
LESSON ONE: Brooklyn Needs quick Guards Who Can Get To The Rim

Only 3 teams have 2 players who tank top 25 in the NBA in drives to the basket. LeBron’s Cavs, who are rolling. the Magic, but that is likely a function of Victor Oladipo and Elfrid Payton being unable to shoot and resorting to continued rim forays because they know nothing else. And the Hawks, in Jeff Teague and Dennis Schroder.

Teague and Schroder both served as the foundation from where everything went wrong for defenses trying to stop Atlanta this season. Both get to the rim at will and finish once they are there (postseasons aside). Rotate off of them, and Carroll and Korver are both knockdown shooters who will make you pay, and did: the Hawks took and made many threes this season, to the tune of 4th in threes taken (and they created wide open threes more than any other team, per NBA.com stats). 

Keep a body on the Hawks shooters and their guards can make plays. And, most importantly to Brooklyn, the persistent threats from the perimeter and off the dribble left Horford and Millsap with space to operate all season.

Brook Lopez and Thaddeus Young are likely a lesser pair than Horford and Millsap, but are a very good front court pairing. The Nets have capable shooting in Mirza, Bojan, Anderson, and Johnson and Deron, to the extent any or all of those players return. But the team does not have the ability to knife through defenses in the way Teague and Schroder do. That type of player is what Brooklyn needs.

LESSON TWO: FORGET ABOUT MAKING A SPLASH AND WORK THE BARGAIN BIN

The Hawks like the Warriors were another free agency “loser.” They had grand plans of acquiring Dwight Howard and Chris Paul in free agency. Those plans failed. But Atlanta did not continue with that plan or panic sign other huge names in a back page battle. Instead, they scoured the market for value signings over headline driven moves, and cobbled together an elite team (non elite teams don’t win 60 games, period). 

I’m sure if the Nets marketed DeMarre Carroll in 2013 as a significant offseason addition, the reaction would have been “who.” And that is why the Nets did not scour the bargain bin for the 2013 DeMarre Carroll, and why some teams this summer won’t try to find the next Carroll: it doesn’t generate buzz. 

Wel, forget buzz. Nothing the Hawks did in the past several summers from a personnel standpoint generated buzz. It generated 60 wins though. There seems to be a school of thought that NY wants brash players, “leaders,” guys who visibly throw their heart on their sleeves. Atlanta doesn’t have that: they have a winner, and in reality that is all Brooklyn needs.

The Nets can build a team, just like Atlanta did. A team in the modern NBA needs several ingredients. You need dribble penetration, shooting, players who can guard multiple positions, and players who can play both ends of the floor at a B level or higher. For all the talk of a “superstar league,” the conference finals feature a 0 superstar, 1 superstar, 1-2 superstar (Dwight was injured half the year and Houston hummed), and 1-2 superstar (Love is out and Kyrie is not at that level these playoffs with his injuries) team. 

The Hawks won 60 games by breaking defenses down off the dribble, then quickly reversing the ball and making plays against recovering defenses. 

Brooklyn can build that by targeting specific personnel, and do not need to get Durant in 14 months. It will not be easy. It may require patience and rolling some cap space into 2017, rather than winning the headline from the Knicks. But it should be the focus.

For all the talk that the Hawks style cannot win in June, it’s winning for Golden State and got Atlanta to a place Brooklyn has not been for now 12 years. The Hawks collapse is more about their collective psyche than a referendum on their style or roster. 

Credit to the Hawks. When they struck out on Dwight and CP3 they went out and acquired complementary personnel, with players who can make plays off the dribble, shoot, guard their positions, and punish teams inside when they overload the perimeter. 

The Nets have parts of that construction, but only parts. Will they find the rest?