Brooklyn's Beat

The number of the day is 7.  7 represents how many points the Brooklyn Nets lost by in game 1, a 99-92 defeat in Atlanta.  7 also represents how many shots Brook Lopez took in game 1, converting on 6 of them.  That figure ties Lopez’s fewest number of shots since January 1, with the exception of a January 22 drubbing at the hands of the Clippers (a 39 point loss where minutes were limited).

Naturally, with two days off between games 1 and 2, Lopez’s shot total has spurred much criticism and discussion. Isiah Thomas and Rick Fox have been critical of the Nets’ guards for failing to deliver Lopez the ball. Stefan Bondy has discussed the issue in the Daily News as well.

The theme has been clear: get Lopez more involved.

The problem?  While Lopez does need to shoot more, simply forcing the ball into him as a means to that end is a mistake, and if the Nets do that, it will be their undoing on Wednesday.

Imagine NBA offense as a game of Chess: suppose the offense is going first, with the opponent defending and going second.  At the beginning of the game, the pieces are in place.  There is no route to the King, Queen, Rooks, or even the Bishops and Knights.  So you make a move, and then your opponent gets to go.  Then, you try to accomplish your goal: open up the King to attack.  You begin taking your opponent’s pieces.  The more you take, the less they have to defend the King and their better pieces with.  Suddenly, the board becomes more open.  Time passes, and now, you are able to make moves that cause your opponent to pick his poison.  If he moves his Knight, you take his Rook; if he does not, you take his other Rook.  Eventually, your opponent is scrambling aimlessly, until you place him in Check Mate.

Such is the goal of an NBA offense.  An NBA defense is set, ready to counter the offense of the opposing team.  It is the offense’s goal to, like chess pieces, maneuver those pieces, make them move, stretch them out, and create creases that were not there at the start of the possession.  Then, the offensive players can score by taking advantage of those creases.

The best offenses are the ones that are best at developing those creases, and the easiest way to develop them is the dribble drive.  That is where, again, Deron Williams comes into play.  Certainly, he does not do this all the time, which is a combination of a problem, concern, and a source of confusion and annoyance.  But Deron is the Nets best piece at creating creases in defenses.  In the games where he creates them, Brooklyn has been at his best: they need to be at their best against a 60-22 win team.

Brook is at his best when attempting to score in the pick and roll, or when attempting to score off a cut to the basket.  The reason: when Deron gets to the basket, or occasionally when Joe does, teams must commit a second defender, or potentially a third defender.  Rotations fall into disarray, and Lopez, an extremely skilled big man with adept touch, is excellent at cutting into the creases dribble penetration creates, and finishing the shots created by those creases, over still recovering and rotating defenders.

Brook, instead, isolating and attempting to create his own look through a post up or isolation? The defender is now in a much better position to stop Brook, and Brook is in a worse position relative to his ability to score.

Looking at the data (taken from NBA.com/stats), the Nets scored 1.08 points pers possession this season when Brook was the roll man in pick and rolls, and 1.32 points per possession with Brook as a cutter to the basket.  Those numbers dip to .95 points per possession when Brook posts up, and .84 points per possession when he isolates.

Perspective?  According to Nylon Calculus, the Clippers led the NBA in offensive efficiency, scoring 1.138 points per possession, and the Sixers finished last with .965 points per possession.  The Grizzlies sat 15th (in the middle) at 1.064 points per possession.

Translation? When Brook is a cutter to the basket, the Nets’ offense is extremely effective (albeit this metric is skewed by cuts to the hoop that bred uncontested baskets).  When Brook is used in the pick and roll, the Nets offense is 11th in the league.  Post ups and isolations? The Nets play like a doormat on those possessions: that is not a surprise because post ups are efficient league wide.

So, yes, Lopez needs more possessions for the Nets to grab a win in game 2.  He is the team’s best player, and his involvement offensively must be a priority.

However, the Nets should be cautious of responding to his lack of touches by saying, “hey Brook, here’s the ball, take Horford (or Antic, or whoever) off the dribble use your body and get us buckets.” Over the long haul, that is inefficient.  What Brooklyn should do is get Brook reinvolved as a roll man in the pick and roll, with the occasional pop as it is called for.   That is when Brook is at his best, and also when the Nets are at theirs.

After all, look at the chessboard.  When Brook posts up over a good defender, the defense has not moved.  Help is on the ready, taking away a sound drive.  The look is contested.  Teammates are watching rather than working off the ball.  When Brook is found as a cutter and screener on the move, due to a probing Deron Williams?  The defense is chasing Deron.  The big man is made to choose: do I stick tight to Brook or help on Deron?  Perimeter defenders have to choose: do I help down low and leave shooters open (Deron, Joe, Alan Anderson, Thaddeus Young, Joe Johnson, and Bojan Bodjanovic all shoot 36-42% on catch and shoot threes) or stay home and hope a center, having just caught and swooping to the hoop, is going to fail to convert inside. Mike Prada of SB Nation did an excellent feature on this.

So when the Nets play the Hawks on Wednesday, yes, Brook Lopez needs to be involved much more offensively.  However, the numbers show that forcing that involvement through isolations and force fed post ups is a mistake.  Such forcing, into ready defenders and stretched arms, also leads to needless turnovers.

The real key? The Nets need Deron to be more aggressive, and create creases off the dribble.

Once he does that (as he did to close the season: which surprise, surprise, coincided with Brook’s best stretch of play), the Nets can unleash Lopez upon the Hawks as they hoped to do in game 1.

After the dust settled, a wild Nets season brought a third consecutive playoff berth to Brooklyn.  Brooklyn was written off numerous times, dismissed as a team that was lottery bound (without the accompanying pick).  Then Brooklyn was counted in, as a team going to the postseason.  Then they were counted out again.

Do some east teams that missed the playoffs have a brighter future outlook? Of course.  Are the other playoff teams either clearly better than Brooklyn right now, or expected to grow more in the future? Of course.

But the bottom line is that the Nets are in today’s playoffs, and the team (and its fans) should savor the moment.  There are no guarantees or promises in the NBA: sometimes the best laid plans go to waste (before Billy King purged the Nets’ asset pool, he built it: the Nets once were that bad team with a ton of flexibility).  Heat-Pacers, Heat-Bulls, and Heat-Thunder were projected as late playoff matchup fixtures in recent years: three are in the lottery and a fourth has been derailed (Chicago is good, not great: great was expected after 2010-2011) due to injuries, and dissension within the organization.

You never know what the future holds in the NBA, regardless of how smart a team is or how much it has planned.  So, while team building matters (I constantly Tweet about it and write about it on this site), you also have to enjoy the present.

Nets fans: enjoy the present.  Savor this 2015 playoff run.  Maybe Brooklyn gets Kevin Durant in 2016 and he forms a team of super friends in Barclays.  Maybe Brooklyn misses out on all notable free agents, Brook Lopez walks, and the Nets are a 60 loss team in two years.  There is no way to know what will happen in the future, and when the offseason comes, there will be plenty of time to evaluate Brooklyn’s.

For now, however, this is about enjoying the playoffs.  And talking Hawks-Nets.

LET’S BE REALISTIC: BROOKLYN IS A TREMENDOUS UNDERDOG

Can the Nets beat the Hawks? I will say yes, only because anything can happen in sports.  Tracy McGrady scored 13 points in 35 seconds.  CJ Watson didn’t lay it in.  Reggie Miller scored 8 points in 9 seconds.  The Seahawks were on the 1 yard line with a monstrous running back and lost the Super Bowl.   So yes, the Nets can beat the Hawks  You can also win the lottery multiple times over and earn enough cash to buy the Nets from Mikhail Prokhorov.

For whatever reason, many seem fixated on the idea that the NBA is about having one incredible superstar, and that rosters as a whole do not matter (2014 Spurs, 2011 Mavs, 2008 Celtics, 2004 Pistons, and numerous near champions like Nash’s Suns notwithstanding, somehow).  Not only is that false, but the game has changed to pronounce that falseness.

The new prototype NBA contender has multiple players who can dribble (to slice through defenses and maneuver them out of position), pass (so that the defense does not have time to recover), and shoot (so that when people are open due to the dribbling and passing, they can knock shots down.  The league has gone away from the days of “give it to player X and let player X do his thing.  The Spurs destroyed the 2014 playoffs, without the best player in any series it played.  Arguably, the Blazers, Thunder, and Heat teams they beat had the best two players in the series.

The Hawks have all the parts.  Nearly every single player in their rotation can dribble, pass, and shoot.  Jeff Teague beats opposing point guards off the bounce and probes defenses, ranking 4th in the NBA in drives this season, per Sports VU statistics.  He also can shoot and pass.  Once he gets into the defense and double teams come, problems arise.  Kyle Korver gets open around screens and must be accounted for, and DeMarre Carroll can shoot the rock as well.  Paul Millsap and Al Horford: they also have deep range, and are quick for their positions, which allows them to round out the attack.  Dennis Schroder probes the defense when he checks in for Teague, and Mike Scott, Pero Antic, and Kent Bazemore round out the roster with productive play in similar ways.

Carroll is also an underrated weapon.  In any sport (or any game, period), it is valuable to excel in the skills everyone is trying to present, and to excel in stopping teams from executing those skills.  Carroll has the ability to guard multiple positions and has quick feet to contain penetration: in a league where teams try to create cross matches and penetrate to the hoop, those skills are very valuable (in the way that NFL secondaries have become more valuable with the NFL passing revolution).

The Hawks have all the parts.  You do not rank top 7 in the NBA on both ends of the floor if you don’t. Many knock their lack of a 20 point per game scorer as if that’s a requirement for a title (and as if the 2014 Spurs do not exist).  The Hawks also rank second in the NBA in clutch time offense and the Celtics are now notorious for excelling late getting baskets: you do not need 1 “heroball” player to score late in games.

The Nets problem in this series?  Most of their rotation players have similar flaws.  Deron, Joe, Bojan, and Brook (4 of the Nets top 5-6 pieces) are all slow for their position.  Markel Brown is likely the only Net that can even try to stay in front of Teague, but that requires Bojan to sit.  Bojan and Joe will struggle with Korver running around screens, and with recovering to Carroll to contest 3’s.  Millsap being undersized does help Thad, but Brook will struggle with Horford’s midrange game, quickness, and ability to get to his spots inside.

On the other end, the Hawks rotations are crisp, and the Nets will find it challenging to score.  Of worry, the offense is simple, and the Hawks will have time to figure things through.

A NOTE ON DERON WILLIAMS AND THE DRIBBLE DRIVE CONUNDRUM

One side note: as I lay out above, the dribble drive is a HUGE part of the modern game.  The Nets resurgence occurred because Deron became reinvigorated, and began attacking off the bounce with vigor, began pulling defenses out of position.  That pulling opens up Brook’s inside game (it’s much easier to get his shots off with space and creases), Thad’s slashing and cutting game (it’s easy to attack open lanes, hard to attack closed ones), and the arc for Joe and Bojan.  Deron is also the only player on the roster capable of doing those things, he just does not do them all the time — and that is why he gets criticized so often.  Deron got away from that in the last 3 games of the year and Brooklyn suffered for it.

Brooklyn will need an engaged Deron Williams to have a puncher’s chance in this series.

SO WHAT CAN THE NETS DO ABOUT THE HAWKS?

For all the talk of how bad the Nets are, much of that has occurred because teams are often judged and graded on the scale of expectation. Expectations for the Nets (externally, and even more so internally), were sky-high when they made the Boston trade.  The Nets have not met those expectations and are graded on that curve.  The Utah Jazz were considered a team that had a great year, the Nets viewed as an abomination: both went 38-44.  The reason for that is grading based on expectation.

If you do not look at the salary cap or asset situation (and yes, both are bad), and just judge teams based on 2014-2015 and what they did, what the Nets were was a mediocre team.  They went 38-44: they won some, and they lost some.  They are not terrible, but they are not good, either.  They are a decent team with plenty of flaws, but also strengths.  Each player on the roster can help in some way.

Joe Johnson: the Nets have to retain hope Johnson can change the series, however improbable.  Johnson is a tough cover when he’s on his game because the league is getting smaller, which makes him a gigantic wing capable of bullying wings inside.  If Johnson can do that to Carroll, perhaps Atlanta would throw Millsap at him to cross match, which would open up other pieces (like Thad) for baskets.

Deron Williams: the Nets are a different team when Deron is playing quality basketball.  They were off to a 4-2 start when he came out with the right mindset to open the year.  They looked good when he won player of the week.  They rolled into position to clinch a playoff berth due to his mini revival (not full-fledged) late in the year.  The Nets are essentially a 45-50 win team capable of doing damage when Deron is on (which happened for about 25 games this season), and a 25-30 win team when he is off his game: that’s the difference his play makes.  That averaged out to a 38-44 record.  If Deron has a good series, the Nets can at least make the Hawks know they are there.

Brook Lopez: Lopez is bigger than Horford, and while Horford is excellent defensively, Brook struggles most with big, burly centers who can push him around, and does have a matchup with Horford that he can excel in.  If Brook can own the paint, perhaps that can force Atlanta to make adjustments, and open up the floor for others.

Alan Anderson: You may be surprised to see him featured, but AA is a classic example of roster fit.  The Nets have multiple players who, even when playing well, excel offensively but struggle or are just average defensively.  Anderson is a very good perimeter defender, and is the only Net that provides this skill except for Markel Brown, who is too small to guard 3’s and gets lost off the ball.  That makes Anderson very valuable to Brooklyn: he is the only Net with a necessary skill.  Anderson being healthy for Brooklyn could be a big boost: can Johnson and Bojan chase Korver around all game?

Markel Brown: He may wind up guarding Korver some, because he’s going to be quicker navigating screens than Joe or Bojan.  The concern is that Korver is much bigger than him, and his hand up on a 3 may not matter.  Were I Hollins, I would use Markel to guard Teague and Schroder to wall penetration.

Thaddeus Young: While it sounds weird to put him on Korver, he is quicker than Johnson and Bojan and may more easily chase Korver around screens.  Millsap is more of a face up big than a large bruiser, and Johnson may actually find guarding him easier than guarding Korver, given Johnson’s size and lack of speed.

The rest:  Bogdanovic has been a torrid shooter of late.  The NBA is a make or miss league, and if the Nets want to make this a series, Bojan needs to get hot.  Jack and Plumlee are good enough at basketball to play bench minutes but need to be smart.  When Jack takes midrange jumpers before looking for teammates and Plumlee isolates, bad things happen.  When Jack probes and lets others get theirs and Plumlee plays the garbage man role, good things happen.  Cory Jefferson and Earl Clark may receive spot minutes, and the general goal there is for them not to hurt the team but just be a net neutral.

PREDICTION

Hawks in 4.  The Hawks are a great team, and the Nets are a mediocre one.  Their offense is supreme, and the Nets offense is good in spurts, but inconsistent.  Their defense is incredible, while the Nets are a collective sieve on that end.  They won 60 games, the Nets 38.  Deron is the key to the series for the Nets, but cannot be counted on in any objective sense (I can and will hope he has a great series, but I cannot count on that).

The Hawks are primed for a deep playoff run.  The Nets may squeak out a home game 3 off energy and adrenaline (the most common gentleman’s sweeps feature the road team winning game 3 with a huge burst of energy, as the home team, up 2-0 in the series, gets complacent), or perhaps they win a game 4 down 3-0, against a lazy Hawks team knowing they have a home game 5 in their back pockets.

Nets fans: enjoy the playoff run, whether it lasts for 4 games or 28.  The future could be grim, and while we do not know what will happen, we do know that uncertainty is abound.  So for now, enjoy the present, and embrace being a Titanic sized underdog.

25-38. Losers of five straight. Now 3.5 games out of the playoff picture, and fading fast.  No first round picks in 2016 or 2018.  A first in 2015 subject to the Atlanta Hawks’ swap rights (meaning the Brooklyn Nets would currently pick 29th) and a 2017 first subject to the Boston Celtics’ swap rights in 2017 means that, even with their struggles, the Nets will not pick in the lottery until at least 2019, unless the Celtics miss the 2017 playoffs (and their arrow is pointing upward).

Needless to say, the Nets are in dire straights.  And a look at their salary picture this summer reveals a major challenge: there is no cap space to materially improve.  Their talent on the books generally has negative trade value, and cannot be dealt for talent upgrades that truly impact the win column. And with the pick debt as is, together with the lack of a blue chip young player (pieces like Mason Plumlee, Markel Brown, and Bojan Bogdanovic are nice pieces: none a bonafide prospect or clear-cut core piece), the Nets lack the assets to put themselves in play for a big name should he come available this summer.

So what can the Nets do this summer? Here’s a look at the asset picture, and the decisions facing the team this summer:

THE ROSTER, WITH FREE AGENTS BY POSITION

PG: Deron Williams ($21,042,800); Jarrett Jack ($6,300,000)

-Free Agents: Darius Morris ($1,015,421 team option/nonguaranteed)

SG: Bojan Bogdanovic ($3,425,510);

-Free Agents: Markel Brown ($845,059 team option/nonguaranteed)

SF: Joe Johnson ($24,894,863); Sergey Karasev ($1,599,840)

-Free Agents: Alan Anderson ($1,333,484 player option);

PF:

-Free Agents: Thaddeus Young ($9,971,739 player option); Mirza Teletovic (Restricted free agent with $4,210,125 qualifying offer); Cory Jefferson ($845,059 team option/nonguaranteed)

C: Mason Plumlee ($1,415,520)

-Free Agents: Brook Lopez ($16,744,218 player option); Jerome Jordan (Restricted free agent with $1,147,276 qualifying offer)

With the above commitments, the Nets have a guaranteed salary total of $58,678,533, for just six players: Williams, Jack, Bogdanovic, Johnson, Karasev, and Plumlee.  The 2015-2016 cap is projected at $66.3 million (http://www.fearthesword.com/2014/9/8/6121569/nba-salary-cap-news-should-benefit-cavs), which gives the Nets approximately $7,621,467 in cap space, were they to renounce every one of their free agents, and were Lopez, Young, and Anderson all to decline their player options for next season.

As for the player options, anything is possible.  My prediction: Lopez in a close tossup opts in, on faith he will stay healthy and get paid during the 2016 cap rise bonanza.  Young opts in so he can cash in, in 2016.  Anderson, on a minimum salary, opts out to get a raise or join a contender.

The cap space the Nets could have is a mirage.  Were either Lopez or Young to opt in, the Nets would not have any cap space this summer: the opt in deadline for both players is likely sometime in June, prior to the start of free agency (it is typically June 30 or June 15).  In addition, it is likely the Nets keep Brown and Jefferson, which cuts a little into their cap space as is.  The Nets will also likely extend the qualifying offer to Teletovic to retain matching rights in his restricted free agency (the rights do not require the Nets to keep him, but permit the power to match any offers).  That offer will tie up cap space in the form of a cap hold, too.  Also, with the TV deal coming, and Teletovic’s value being down due to his blood clotting ailment, there exists the possibility Teletovic accepts the qualifying offer so that he can become an unrestricted free agent during the 2016 bonanza (rather than locking in now under a lower cap, coming off a substantial medical problem).

The point: in even the most flexible scenario, the Nets have under $8 million in cap space, and in all likelihood they will have less, and even more likely none.

But then, another question arises.  How will the Nets use the cap space, even if it is available?  The Nets are clearly planning on entering 2016 free agency with as much cap space as possible, in the hope that they can use that free agency class to reshape their entire roster.  Do the Nets want to cut into that this summer? For $8 million, the Nets are likely able to add a low rung starter, or bench player, on a 3 year deal: is that worth cutting into the wad of cap space coming?  Perhaps the Nets use their cap space this summer on smaller one year deals to younger pieces they hope to move forward with, or they just add expiring deals.

With eight free agents and under $8 million to spend, free agency fireworks are unlikely.  With nothing but minimum salaries and the taxpayer exception of $3.376 million available if Young opts in (or the $5.464 non-taxpayer exception, but that would hard cap the Nets at the apron of $85 million, and staying under that figure if Lopez and Young stay would be a considerable challenge).  The talent available at those numbers is slim.

Eight free agents, but a franchise perhaps not committed to a single player under contract: Williams, Johnson, and Jack on the move? 

With so much salary committed for next season, the Nets face a big problem this summer.  There is no money to spend on free agents that can make the team materially better.  Good luck materially improving through the draft with such a late first rounder.  Tank with no pick in 2016, especially when free agents do not want to join bottom feeders? Improving via trade? It’s likely the only option, and also likely presents little of value to Brooklyn.

The Nets tried to trade Williams, Johnson, and Lopez this season.  Those three players have the only eight figure salaries on the roster: you must match salary in trades, so the only way for the Nets to even try to deal for a good or elite player was to try to deal one of the three.  They learned that Williams and Johnson can only be dealt at a net negative, production wise, for good reason: think about how badly you want them gone, then imagine being asked as an opposing GM if you wanted to bring them in.  Would you deal more than bad contracts? Wouldn’t you ask for assets in the deal? Given Lopez’s foot, and the best offer clearly being for the struggling and maligned Reggie Jackson, he also may not be tradeable unless it is done at a loss.

The Nets figure to at least test the Williams-Johnson trade waters this summer.  What they can get for either remains a mystery.  Do they bite a bullet, and use Plumlee, Bogdanovic, or Brown or Jefferson (assuming their options are picked up) to try to dump either.  In the case of Johnson, who expires in time for the 2016 bonanza, is that even worth doing?  With how little youth is coming down the pike, can Brooklyn afford to trade youth that has the makings of at least rotation pieces, if not starters or stars?

With Williams, the Nets really have a problem on their hands.  He gets worse, really, every year.  He went from elite in 2011, to very good in 2012 (he was a malcontent in New Jersey and was not elite because he was not mentally engaged, but by virtue of his talent at the time he was still very good), to ok in 2012-2013 with a very good late flourish, to ok in 2013-2014 (he was essentially a game manager who could run the offense and hit his jumper), to a total mess in 2014-2015.  Nobody wants him, and with his declining play comes $43 million over the next two seasons.

And while there is plenty of 2016 flexibility even with Williams in that fold, if Brooklyn want to retain that flexibility while adding to their in-house under contract 2016 core, they only can do so if Williams is dealt for expiring money.  That seems impossible, and likely requires dangling youth to get the deal done.  Can a team lacking young assets dump that youth because it is trying to, essentially, create more future cap space.  Do the Nets use the stretch exception on Williams and spread his payments over five years (essentially paying him on the cap to go away)?

The decisions with Johnson and Jack are easier.  Neither affects the 2016 salary picture.  So the Nets may explore to see if either can be traded for younger pieces, and if not, simply keep them and move on.  Lionel Hollins likes Jack, but there is a league wide premium on guard play, and many traditional basketball people (not the advanced metrics community) like Jack because he has a reputation for making big shots, he has a good attitude, and he seems like a good teammate.  The Nets may at least see what they can get for him from the type of front office that may bite (i.e.: one with less of a predilection toward analytics).

As for Bogdanovic, he seems unlikely to be shopped, but again, could be attached to Williams if the Nets feel that would help them dump Williams on another team (don’t hold your breath).  Karasev was a throw in in the Jack trade and that was before he tore his MCL: he has little value on the market.

And then there’s Plumlee.

Brook Lopez or Mason Plumlee?

NBA fans love rookie contract youth, because rookie deals are cheap.  NBA fans tend to dislike non superstar youth when it gets extensions in restricted free agency: those players tend to get overpaid on potential and due to the salary matching market, and fans hate overpaid.  NBA fans love athleticism.  NBA fans love players who show their emotions when they play, because they have passion for their team and want to see that come out of their players.  NBA fans love rim rattling dunks.

All of which explains why Plumlee is a fan favorite, whereas Lopez, overall, is not.  Plumlee’s cheap. He can run, jump, and dunk.  He gets fired up.  He’s not a “max” contract.  Lopez: he’s not an athlete, he does not have Plumlee’s on court bravado, he is slow, he appears to lack energy because of those factors, and he’s expensive.

It is a known fact that lineups pairing both Lopez and Plumlee have been brutal for Brooklyn.  The reason is simple: Lopez plays his best around the basket as a post up option, cutter off curls, or pick and roll dive man: Plumlee is at his best as a dive man.  Both are worse when drifting outside, so their skills are not complementary and they take one another’s real estate.  Defensively, Lopez cannot guard 4’s, so Plumlee is forced to guard 4’s, an area where he struggles.

The problem?  If the two centers cannot play together, how can you provide starters money to both and commit to both.  Committing nearly $25-35 million annually at the center position (Plumlee will not be on his rookie deal forever, and productive centers are expensive), especially when the players cannot share court time, makes it extremely difficult to build a roster around the players.

With the Lopez trade lined up at the deadline, it seemed the Nets made their minds up, and chose Plumlee over Lopez.  And Plumlee does have his attributes.  The NBA game is built around the dribble drive, and a dive roll man who can finish in the pick and roll and hit shooters if doubled in the pick and roll is very valuable: Plumlee can do both, and if the Nets had solid guard play those skills would show themselves more.  While Plumlee is Lopez’s age, he has considerably less NBA experience and thus, theoretically, more time to learn NBA defense.  Plumlee will also make just $2,328,530 in 2016-2017 (it’s a team option the Nets would definitely pick up if he’s on the roster), while Lopez will clearly be making close to 10-13 million more than that.  Accordingly, choosing Plumlee over Lopez leaves the Nets that much more cap space to invest in the rest of the roster during the 2016 bonanza.  And we haven’t even gotten to the fact that Plumlee has not suffered season ending foot surgery twice.

That’s not to say there is not a case for Lopez.  Lopez started 2014-2015 extremely slowly.  He had just suffered a second devastating foot injury (after other minor foot injuries), wherein medical personnel quite literally moved the location of bones within his foot, in the hope the resultant weight distribution would help  him stay upright.  He had to relearn how to walk and clearly lacked confidence early this season planting and moving aggressively, often seeming ginger in regards to where he was placing his feet.

However, Lopez has gotten better with each month that has passed, and has played very good basketball for about 1-2 months now.  He has also, flat-out, been a better player than Plumlee during that stretch: the sample is growing every day, and the gap is actually widening as Lopez continues to gain on court comfort in the wake of his injury.  He is scoring as always.  His rebounding appears to have gotten better, having clearly taken to Hollins imploring him to crash the offensive glass.  Defensively, he may struggle in the pick and roll, but when in position, his size affects shooters.  As the season has worn on, Hollins has leaned on Lopez more and more, and with good reason: you can argue he is the best player on the team, across games 1-63.  It is not uncommon of late to see Lopez play 30-35 minutes, with Plumlee merely getting the minutes where Lopez is sitting.  Lopez is simply much better offensively, and close to Plumlee’s equal on the other end if not better.

Plumlee may seem much younger, but there is only a two-year difference because he entered the league late.  And while the salary disparity now is out of line, Plumlee is a free agent in 2017, and is likely to command close to $8-9 million that summer (big men get paid, and teams always pay for potential in free agency).  Lopez? He is unlikely to get a raise from what he is making now, and may even take a small pay cut due to his injury history, in the pursuit of longterm security.  Lopez making $14.4 million more than Plumlee sounds cartoonish.  Lopez making $5 million more, when Plumlee is as suspect defensively and struggles to score beyond diving to the rim for dunks?  Does not seem as outlandish.

The Nets likely cannot move forward with Lopez and Plumlee.  They may choose one path this summer, especially with Hollins having gone away from the Lopez-Plumlee tandem.

Score my vote for Lopez. But this is a close issue, and this choice is one of Brooklyn’s defining moments this summer: that and whether they look to deal Williams and/or Johnson.

Free Agency Notes on Everyone: Some Predictions, and Options

-Williams: likely to be shopped aggressively this summer. Do not be surprised if the stretch exception or a buyout is considered. Prediction: Gone

-Johnson: likely shopped once again, but likely back in Brooklyn. Prediction: Back

-Lopez: likely to be shopped if the Nets choose Plumlee over him.  If he opts out, the Nets will likely commit to keeping him or getting something via sign and trade. Prediction: Gone

-Young: likely opts into his deal to cash in bigtime in 2016. Prediction: Back

-Plumlee: Billy loves him he’s a clear rotation player, and I believe the Nets will choose him over Lopez in a mistake: Prediction: Back

-Jack: perhaps shopped, but figures to be back in the fold. Prediction: Back

-Teletovic: will become a restricted free agent who tests the market, but Nets likely do not pay up. Prediction: Gone

-Bogdanovic: not likely to be shopped, but not valuable enough to not at least be part of potential deals. Prediction: Back

-Karasev: under contract and has a torn MCL. Prediction: Back

-Anderson: a nice role player who fits on a contender. Likely looks to make more money next season or join a contender.  Prediction: Gone

-Brown: a fan favorite already.  Not a bona fide rotation player yet because he cannot shoot the ball, but has tools to become a Patrick Beverley type player: Prediction: Back

-Jefferson: can do boneheaded things, but plays hard and could become a low-end rotation player if he develops a decent jumper or becomes a defender: Prediction: Back

-Jordan: one of the Nets smallest issues this summer. Prediction: Gone

-Morris: clearly the last man off the bench. Prediction: Gone

Overall, predicted Nets returning: Johnson, Young, Plumlee, Jack, Bogdanovic, Karasev, Brown, Jefferson.

Overall, predicted defections: Williams, Lopez, Teletovic, Anderson, Jordan, Morris

With all the issues facing the Nets, one thing is for sure.  This will be a busy summer for ownership and management in Brooklyn.

With the trade deadline having come and gone, the Nets stood at 21-31 (now 22-31, opening their post break schedule with a road win over the Lakers), and in the thick of the race for the 7-8th seeds in the East.  A look at the standings reveals, simply, that the top 6 teams in the east are largely solidified, the bottom 3 are out, and that leaves the Heat, Nets, Hornets, Pistons, Pacers, and Celtics (in current standings order), competing for the final two seeds in the playoff picture.

Taking the longer view, that means that if the Nets make the playoffs, they are looking at the Hawks or Raptors, unless a team in the 3-6 seed range (most likely the Cavs, if you had to speculate) leap frogs the Hawks (seems unlikely given their 8.5 game lead), or Raptors (whose lead is just 2.5 games).

With that, here is where things stand for Brooklyn as they march on with their year.

The Playoff Race: 

To make the playoffs, the Nets, flat out, must play better basketball than they have all year.  While they currently reside in the 8th spot, just 2 games separate the 7-12 seeds in the east. The Nets rank bottom 10 in the league in offensive and defensive rating, with a worse rating than each team in the 7-12 seed region.  The Nets also have an expected record of 18-35 given their struggles this season, and have outperformed that expectation at 22-31: the current record may be a mirage in a bad way.  They also have the toughest schedule of the 6 teams in the race for 7-8.  Paul George may return for Indiana.  Boston and Detroit added Isaiah Thomas and Reggie Jackson.  Even Charlotte added Mo Williams, and while Chris Bosh’s medical condition is an extremely sad story not to be wished on anybody, the Heat did add Goran Dragic to their mix.

Can the Nets make the playoffs? Absolutely.  But that is not a guarantee.

Back to Going Small? 

Recently, Steve Kerr sat down with nba.com to talk about his incredible Warriors team.  And while most (including myself) see Andrew Bogut as the key to their defense, this was was Kerr had to say about his defense: its key is Draymond Green because of his ability to guard multiple positions:

“One of the keys to our defense is our ability to switch on the perimeter. We have a lot of like-sized guys. And Draymond [Green], to me, is the key to our defense. He’s the key figure, because as the power forward, he’s frequently involved in screen-and-rolls. And because he’s quick enough and active enough to switch out onto a point guard, we’re able to stifle a lot of the first options out of the opponent’s attacks. And when that happens and the shot clock starts to wind down, we’re able to stay in front of people and force a tough shot.”

Playing multiple players of similar sizes? Taking advantage of that, by switching to handle pick and rolls, as opposed to losing a split second trailing the pick? Sound familiar? That sounds like last year’s Nets, who were not as good as these Warriors, but, in going on a 34-13 run to surge to the 5 seed, was clearly better than this year’s group.

 Many traditionalists love to say you cannot win small, and you cannot win shooting threes, but that ignores all recent evidence.  The Spurs just marched through the league built around a dribble drive kick and 3 point shooting style.  The Heat have played small to accomplish what they have the past several years.  The Warriors and Hawks are small and shoot the 3 now (Horford and Millsap both are undersized).  I can go on, but the point is made.

There are less back to the basket bigs today, and more talented guards who knife through your defense with the pick and roll. Like any sport, the most important skills to have are the skills the sport’s greatest players have, and the ability to defend against the use of those skills.  That makes shooting the 3, attacking the rim off the dribble to create looks, and defenders that can stop those skills, the league’s most important skills.

Such is true of any sport.  It was easier to get away with subpar passing QB’s in the NFL when offenses were built around the run.  That changed in today’s passing based NFL.  What else happened?  Run stopping interior linemen were more important than pass rushers and elite corners but that importance flipped: when the pass was emphasized value in stopping it grew.  In tennis, when players used to serve and volley, the volley was a more valuable skill: with everyone rallying at the baseline, baseline play became more important.

Can you win by going big and just pummeling teams with that size?  Sure, but if your bigs are not so good, to the point that they can just abuse teams for the choice of going small, and do so continuously, your strategy will be blunted by teams exploiting you with the dribble drive.  Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph are indeed that.

Mason Plumlee and Brook Lopez?  Even if your view of both is as rosy as can be, they are not quite that.  The Nets have a -17.2 net rating in 298 minutes where Lopez and Plumlee share the floor.  That is awful, and at over 6 full games worth of minutes, there is a large enough sample to judge it.  The reasons are obvious.  Offensively, a center who likes to post up or score on flip shots in the lane when fed by guards needs space inside, not a cramped lane.  A dive roll man off the pick and roll needs the same thing.  Brook and Plumlee take that away from one another.  Either one has to float to the perimeter, where teams would happily let them shoot, or both clog the paint, and with the ability for 1 player to essentially guard both guys, the offense is cramped, with no openings for the smalls to attack.

Defensively? Brook cannot guard 4’s, exclusive of the league’s biggest ones.  Mason also struggles some with guarding 4’s.  That makes it tough to switch the pick and roll, and makes it easier for quick guards (which the league is full of) to exploit the Nets. And for all the talk that going small kills rebounding, the go big Nets are a bottom 8 team on the glass.

The bottom line: the Nets need to separate Lopez and Plumlee’s time.  And with the addition of Thaddeus Young, a good pick and roll defender who can toggle between positions defensively, the Nets should go back to the smallball approach that helped them last year.

The rotations really should be simple.  Karasev, Morris, and Jordan are out of it, and Mirza Teletovic of course is injured.  Play Brook and Mason, and Deron and Jarrett Jack (who’ve failed to play well together), separately, with one of the two but not both on court at most all times). Play three of of Johnson, Bogdanovic, Young, and Anderson at teams at the same time, with Markel Brown and Cory Jefferson soaking up spot minutes from those four players, and in Brown’s case, some of Deron and Jack’s.  Johnson and Young, and Anderson, can switch relatively easily on defense.  Jefferson has the body to do so.  Bogdanovic may struggle, but if he shoots the ball like he did in LA, that will be ok.

And for all the talk of it killing the Nets on the glass, it did not against LA, did not last year, and the Nets have not been rebounding anyway.

Is that a championship roster?  Most certainly not.  But it’s a group that can make the postseason.

Some Other Notes

JOE JOHNSON SPRY IN GAME 1: Joe Johnson looked awful to close 2012-2013 and we found out why: he was plagued by tendinitis.  He was excellent to close 2013-2014, carrying the Nets past the Raptors in round 1, his body not burdened by pain.  Of late, Joe has struggled for Brooklyn, and it was finally revealed that he was again plagued by tendinitis.  However, he looked very good in his first game back from the break: the 10 days off work helped his body.  Tendinitis results from overuse, and rest is a helpful remedy: if Joe can continue playing the way he did Friday, that will bode well for Brooklyn.  Not being plagued by tendinitis would help.

DERON WILLIAMS SPRY IN GAME 1: 

Whatever the news or spin out there, it’s critical for the Nets that Deron consistently attack and create as he did against the Lakers Friday, with some 20 point type scoring efforts added to the mix.  For all the adoration Jack has received, he is a bottom rung starter at best in such a deep league at point guard: he just gets credit because he’s compared to a man making nearly quadruple what he is.

The Nets offense hummed Friday because Deron broke the Lakers down and found everyone for baskets.  The Lakers are 23rd in defensive rating, and are awful: this is not a huge accomplishment, by any means.  But the Nets have a long way to go to climb to where they need to be to make the playoffs, and at least have a puncher’s chance of causing their opponent some concern: this was one step.

As I have said many times the Nets have shown many times that they can take one step forward, maybe even 2.  They’ve had some nice wins this season, like Friday’s.  It’s taking steps 3, 4, 5, and beyond where the Nets have repeatedly failed.  If they want to succeed that will need to change.

Nobody on the roster can create looks for teammates the way Deron did Friday.  He got his own shot.  He got his teammates good shots.  Guys like Bogdanovic and Anderson benefitted from getting better shots, rather than being forced to do it themselves.  Joe was a huge beneficiary as well: Deron assisted on numerous Joe hoops.  Deron played  Friday the way he played to start the season: he did start the year well over it’s first 8 or so games and the Nets sported a  top 10 offense in mid November because of it.

I will say this.  There is every reason in the world to doubt Deron Williams. I doubt him. You should too.  But the Nets need him: the reason they are in such bad shape is because of that need.  Can he build on Friday, or was this a one game situation?  I’m leaning towards the latter, but at least hold out hope on the former, if only because I want it to happen.

THE BROOK LOPEZ REGGIE JACKSON FIASCO: BROOKLYN’S FAULT

I will talk more about the Lopez-Plumlee dynamic (and the pros and cons of the Nets trading either) in a later piece.  Regardless, on deadline day, the Nets seemingly had a deal lined up for Reggie Jackson, before the Thunder switched gears and chose to deal Jackson to Detroit.  The timeline of deadline day, per Adrian Wojnarowski (@wojyahoonba, aka Woj).

10:25am: @wojyahoonba Sources: Brooklyn, OKC could have traction on Brook Lopez talks again — if Nets believe they can convince Reggie Jackson to sign extension.

1:15pm: @wojyahoonba Yahoo’s latest on Oklahoma City and Brooklyn push to complete trade. http://yhoo.it/1vjTeb3 

From there, the Nets, without time to line another deal up, failed to deal Lopez.

As I said many times pre deadline, the Nets should never deal a player at a loss just to say they did, but should deal anyone at a gain.  It is clear Plumlee and Lopez cannot play together: Hollins deviating from that unit and the Nets getting this close on a Brook deal tells me the Nets are aware of this.

What bothers me: this idea that some have propagated, that the Nets believe they got screwed by OKC at the deadline: that is off base.

You can make many arguments as to the happenings of the trade deadline as they relate to Lopez.  You can argue the Nets dodged a bullet, because Jackson is likely, at best, a mid to low tier starter set to command $13-$15 million per year.  You can argue the Nets, in only being prudent if they dealt Lopez in a smart deal, would not have found another deal if they looked for one.  You can argue, even, that the Nets should build around Lopez instead of Plumlee going forward.  Each position is open to counters, but can be argued reasonably.

To say the Nets got screwed because it was OKC’s fault they could not find a backup deal? That is ridiculous.  If the Nets believed another deal for Brook may have existed were the Jackson deal to fall through, why didn’t they search for it? The Jacskon deal essentially sat on the table for 4.5 hours (approximately 10:25-2:46) on deadline day.  The Thunder, in that time, never agreed to the deal, never decided to do a trade call.  The reason is obvious: they clearly liked the deal enough to have it on the table, but not enough to immediately agree to it, so they decided to give the league another review to see if they could beat it.  When they did, they let the Nets know.

The Nets should have been similarly diligent.  They should have searched the league, to see if they could find either a better Brook deal, or another Brook deal that they would have been amenable to, as a backup plan.  That they didn’t, quite frankly, shows a lack of diligence on their part.

If the Nets scoured the league, and saw there were no deals they liked, or found deals they liked but could not come to fruition, that would be understandable.  If they knew from the get the only deal for Brook they wanted was for Jackson, and sat for that reason, I guess that’s ok too. But to say they had no time to find plan B because OKC screwed them at the 11th hour begs a simple question.

What were they doing at the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th hour?

Brook did play very well against the Lakers and the hope clearly is that continues: his game has improved since the foot injury.  But for all arguments that can be made about the Lopez non trade, the one that can’t is that OKC screwed Brooklyn.

Pick your favorite sport. Imagine that you play this sport, on a full time basis, professionally. You’re clearly great at it. You’ve always been the best of your peers, and you’re now an elite pro. You have a cockiness, a swagger about you.

Now imagine, you seriously injure your knee (or some other body part). You cannot walk, let alone run. You rehab. But you have lost your explosiveness.

From suffering from back injuries myself, I know how this is. It wears on you. It’s not easy to step on the court against people you were once better than, and be physically unable to beat them because you cannot do things you were once able. That makes the sport less fun.

It’s not fun to go up to dunk when you were once able, and be forced to lay it in. To jump lower on a rim foray and be unable to finish as a result. It’s not fun to get on the court and be unable to do the things you once could. What’s even less fun? To repeatedly injure the same part of your body. To say “I’m going to go out there and get back to who I am,” only to get hurt again. To see a player on the other side you once abused, now abusing you. To be unable to make it change because of once not there physical limitations. For large parts of life to be defined by rehab.

Much of this has seemed to happen to Deron. He cannot do much of what he was once able to do on a basketball court, and it has affected him in every way, really has completed deprived his joy for the game. His comments here, about getting back to having fun? (http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/11606427/lionel-hollins-says-deron-williams-poised-strong-season-brooklyn-nets). Reading them now, it seems as though he was trying to convince himself of that, rather than saying it with any belief.

To an extent, none of this matters. For close to 80% of his Brooklyn tenure, Deron has not played like a max player. And, at this point, “why” does not matter. Only that fact, matters. And with this being his second consecutive failed season to get back to what he did to close 2012-2013, waiting for him to evolve back into a max piece is likely a lost cause.

It’s just worth noting that Deron was once universally regarded as a top 10 player, and much of what is said of him now (he doesn’t have “it,” he never cared, etc) is largely revisionist history. What’s happened can be boiled into a single sentence: “he was great, but injuries have taken his game away, and have also killed his spirit.” But again, the why is not nearly important as the what.

Which brings me to the subject of Mason Plumlee. There has been some chatter around Brooklyn, along the lines of trading him with Deron as a means of purging his money off Brooklyn’s books. I think that is a mistake.

First, I will open with this: Mason Plumlee is not untouchable. If you’re not a top 10-15 player, you are not untouchable because there is something that you can be traded for. Andrew Wiggins isn’t untouchable: if the Thunder dealt Durant or Westbrook to Minnesota for him they would do it right? Plumlee is a very good young piece, but is not untouchable for a simple reason: there are things I would deal him for. One should not confuse “the price tag is high” with untouchable: I would not deal Wiggins unless I received an elite player; that means Wiggins has a super high tag, not that he’s untouchable.

Still, the Nets price on Plumlee should be high. Plumlee is playing like a legit starting center in his second pro season. He can easily be an important piece of their 2016 and beyond. Or, if he continues to develop, he could be a key piece in a deal for a star, or a significant piece going forward. Either result: Plumlee making under $3 million as a starter (which allows for more spending elsewhere), or Plumlee being dealt for a true top 25 piece, beats using him as a carrot, just to coax someone into taking Deron off the Nets’ hands.

Remember: given the cap always rises a smidge, and in 2016 could rise much more due to the new TV deal, the cap in 2016 could be anywhere between $70-$92 million (depending on how conservative the increase is). The implications? If the Nets truly want to pare the roster down, and go into the summer with Deron, Plumlee, Bojan, and their 2015 pick as their sole pieces, they’re looking at $40 million in cap space — as a minimum! 

Numbers vary. The Nets could extend Karasev with his team option, add another pick, or do any number of things between now and July 2016 (and the released numbers may vary), but no matter what, the Nets are looking at oodles of cap space, even in the most conservative of cap projections.

It’s one thing to choose to deal Deron at all costs if the Nets needed to, as their sole means of prying space open. The Nets are not in that position, in the slightest.

Mason Plumlee is playing like a legitimate starting center, and for all the talk that older draft picks don’t develop, he and Damian Lillard (albeit on a different level of star) are doing just that.

If the Nets keep Plumlee, they are set at 2016 starting center with a piece making $2.3 million. If they do not, they will have to pay a starting center closer to $10-15 million — that right there cuts into their space. Couple the fact that even the most generous of Deron trades likely only reduces his $22.3 million hit in 2016 rather than extinguish it, and you’re left with this: trading Plumlee, a starting center at just $2.3 million and who could potentially be traded for a legitimate anchor like piece down the road, as a means of dumping a contract to open up cap space … when the team already has an absurd amount of cap space.

And that leads to another point. Suppose the Nets dump Plumlee in a Deron deal, and that deal makes Bojan, and the Nets 2015 first rounder (from the Hawks, and in the 20’s) as the sole pieces on the roster. Now, free agents are faced with a scenario where they are signing next to … absolutely nothing. Do free agents even want to join that?

Cap space is beloved by fans in today’s “sell them on hope” era, but history shows it means nothing if players don’t actually want to sign into it. That leads to 1 of 2 scenarios. The first is the 2010 Nets: underwhelming signings designed to roll the cap space into the future. That led to the 2011 Nets (same thing) and 2012 Nets, who, clearly, used the space on the wrong pieces, and now desire cap space again. That is the second scenario: the 2009 or 2013 Pistons. Using the accrued cap space on the wrong players. The result of that: waiting for future cap space in the hopes of a mulligan.

The Nets should not stop their shopping of Deron. He’s not worth his contract, clearly. But to sell Plumlee short, and deal a potential cheap starter going forward (the Nets aren’t exactly flush with youth with his upside, or the draft pick options to replicate him), or potential blue chip trade piece going forward, just to open up more cap space when there is already a ton of space? What’s the sense?

The Nets, right now, are trying to rebuild from the middle. Such a build is not impossible: but it is critical for the Nets to maximize their short term successes, and roster base in 2016, to accomplish those things. Looking around the league at similar (not the same, similar) rebuilds from the middle is instructive).

The Mavericks? They struck out on big names in 2011 2012 and 2013. Players saw a weak base around Dirk and did not want in. Signings of Calderon and Ellis were criticized by the media (they overpaid!) but what they did was improve the roster’s base, while retaining enough flexibility to improve. The result? Chandler, Parsons, and Rondo saw Dallas as places to be.

The Pacers? Having gone 37-45 in 2010-2011 was viewed as “this is your classic 8 seed with no chance; you’re better off missing the playoffs to rebuild properly.” But it’s always forgotten: being mediocre IS bad if you’re also expensive, but is NOT bad if you’re flexible to improve: because you’re trying to take a moderate step up with the flexibility for that step. The result? David West signed that offseason, in the belief he could be the missing piece to take the team up a level.

Similar stories are abound: the Nets can rebuild from the middle, but it’s going to require talent in the league believing in Brooklyn as a place to be. The Rockets? Dwight Howard laughed at them. Then James Harden was acquired in a fluky manner, and he was invested. He saw his presence as the missing piece.

Others rebuilt from the middle as well. The Hawks used their middling status as an attraction for Millsap. The Blazers never bottomed out. Boozer in Chicago did not work but their 8 seed middling status attracted him in 2010.

The bottom line: rebuilding from the middle is possible, despite the media love for tanking. But flexibility is not enough. You need to be attractive to free agents. They need to believe that you have something nice in place that they can augment. To attach Plumlee to a Deron salary dump is to deal a significant future piece, and a piece who, while not nearly as good as his contract, expectation, production to sacrifice proportion, or any measure, is still a roster piece: a part of the production of a playoff team (albeit nowhere near the part he was or should be).

And again, that’s such a meager return for Plumlee.  His status as a trade piece for something much more is valuable. Also: he can be the team’s 2016-2017 starter, at just $2.3 million. Dealing him deprives flexibility from working on the other pieces, because you would have to pay a veteran 8 figures to get your starter at his position.

Deal Plumlee and Deron? Brooklyn becomes a literal wasteland. There would be nothing in place except Bojan, the 2015 first, and any pieces acquired for Deron. What free agent sees himself as the missing piece…to a roster with no pieces? At least right now, with Deron in place, Plumlee in place, free agents can see something of the bones of a potential unit. Give me that, and a lot of cap space, over a barren wasteland, and “a lot plus some more” of cap space. The Nets have basically been a top 4-6 east team since moving to Brooklyn, and the more guts of that they can retain, the more likely free agents are to say “I can be what they’ve been missing.”

Critically, dealing Plumlee for flexibility is deceiving because he can conceivably make $2.3 million as a starting 5. Deal him, and you’re paying closer to $10-15 million to fill the position.

Mason Plumlee is not untouchable. Few are. But Mason Plumlee should not be included in a deal as a salary dump to coax someone to take on Deron Williams.