Nets in cost cutting mode

[hasoos]

I honestly and truly believe that Rudy Fernandez would have to do less work to become a serviceable PG than Bayless does. He is now the most imaginative passer on our roster. Can he guard PGs? No. But probably as well as, say, Stephen Curry or Mike Bibby.

Who can't guard an opposing PG as good as Mike Bibby. I can stand there and do nothing on defense too.

 

[Minstrel]

I'd happily give up any combination of Bayless, Fernandez, Outlaw, Webster, rights to Claver/Freeland/Koponen, taking back a bad contract. I'd less happily include Batum or Przybilla, but I would depending on how the deal shook out.

Consolidating decent young players into an excellent young player at a big need position would be a big boost to the team's title chances. To be frank, great benches don't win titles. Great starting fives do.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

If we are able to trade for Devin Harris, would that determine our FA signing?

With three potent offensive weapons (Harris, Roy, Aldridge) wouldn't it make more sense to go for a more defensive oriented player like Ron Artest?

 

[Idog1976]

If Harris is available you do it. While it would suck to lose a talent like Rudy that one is a no brainer with Roy on our team. Batum is a bit more valuable to us as he is our starting and long term SF. I would trade anyone other then Brandon or Greg for Harris. I would consider an LMA for Harris straight up deal.

So I would offer:

A) LMA straight up (don't like this but would test the waters, we would need a follow up PF signing or trade clearly)

or

B) Offer any combo of Blake, Outlaw, Martell, resigned Frye, Bayless and one of Batum, Rudy or Przybilla + picks and cash. Batum would be the last player on that list I would be willing to part with due to my vision of this team being either an offensive juggernaut or a defensive wall. With Batum and Harris you have incredible perimeter defensive capabilities.

If you trade LMA you immediately need to use some form of the second package to net a starting banger PF. Or sign Brandon Bass for instance to a huge contract.

Harris would put this team over the top.

 

[alex42083]

If Harris is indeed available, KP better do all he can to get him without giving away Roy, LA and Greg. You don't get a chance at 26-year-old All-Star PGs often.

 

[B-Roy]

No to an Aldridge/Harris swap. Aldridge is younger and more talented.

 

[Cake]

non taken. I agree with our package.. it would be something that laughed at (although Thorn would practically laugh at anything.. dude drives a hard bargain) I guess My point was they can have any of those assets.. but probably wouldnt. and Like mentioned above.. he is a tier 2 star.. why gut your team for a tier 2 player.

A) Is he really a tier 2 star? He was 3rd in the league in PER for point guards this season. Just a tick behind tony parker and just ahead of Deron Williams. I mean, I guess if you consider Chris Paul as the only tier 1 pg...then guess I have to agree that he's tier 2...but I think it's kind of a rough assessment that anybody who isn't among the all time greats at a position is 'tier 2'.

B) It's not gutting the team to trade Fernandez OR Bayless OR Batum for a guy who will immediately start and give you 36 minutes per game at your weakest position. And can play that position for the next 8 years. Fernandez is maybe a top 20 SG right now. Perhaps someday he'll evolve into a top 10 SG...but i don't see him as the type of player you tag as untouchable when there's a big upgrade that can be made by getting an equal or better player at a position of greated need. And as pointed out above, Rudy is not going to be a starter on this team as long as Brandon Roy is on the roster.

Personally, I think a deal on Blake and Outlaw (cheap/ending contracts) and Fernandez (cheap rookie contract) and a pick or a couple prospects like Claver, would be a really nice offer for a team that wants to cut costs to make a run at a big name free agent next offseason.

Especially since that would still keep us well under the cap to make a run at a free agent like, for example, Paul Millsap. So nothing gets gutted. Our roster would look something like:

Harris, Bayless
Roy, Bayless/Webster
Batum/Webster
Aldridge, free agent PF
Oden, Przybilla

That's a solid 9 deep rotation.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...inger/statistics?sort=per&pos=pg&seasonType=2

 

[RickyRubio]

They want young talent and short deals.

Travis Outlaw (last year of deal)
Steve Blake (last year of deal)
Jerryd Bayless
Rudy Fernandez
2010 1st round pick

for

Devin Harris
Courtney Lee

Are you fucking kiding me? Why don't we throw in Oden too.

Jesus Christ.

 

[RickyRubio]

Harris would put this team over the top.

Not if you trade 4 good bench players to get him.

I would do...

Blake, Outlaw and Rudy

for

Harris and Lee

Harris\Bayless
Roy\Lee
Batum\Webster\Cunningham
LMA\Pendergraph
Oden\Joel

I would part with Rudy to get Lee with Harris. I think Lee is money.

 

[Tortimer]

What? are you people crazy I wouldn't even think about offering LMA for Harris. We could get more for LMA if we wanted to trade him which I don't want to do anyway.

I wouldn't mind trading Rudy for Harris though. I love Rudy but we need Harris more IMO.

 

[LittleAlex]

I'd give them three of any of the players not named Rudy, Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Batum. They can take their pick of whatever else they want, with picks and cash. I agree with you.

In otherwords, you would either give them Joel or a bunch of crap.

Why not just say you wouldn't make the trade?

 

[alex42083]

Not if you trade 4 good bench players to get him.

I would do...

Blake, Outlaw and Rudy

for

Harris and Lee

Harris\Bayless
Roy\Lee
Batum\Webster\Cunningham
LMA\Pendergraph
Oden\Joel

I would part with Rudy to get Lee with Harris. I think Lee is money.

That would no way come close to getting Devin Harris, much less Harris AND Lee. Harris was an All-Star last season entering the prime of his career.

 

[LittleAlex]

Are you fucking kiding me? Why don't we throw in Oden too.

Jesus Christ.

There was only one truly productive player on that list, Rudy. The rest are either WAY unproven (Bayless), inconsistent (Outlaw) or just plain bad (Blake).

New Jersey would be insane to trade Harris for that crap sandwich.

 

[Wheels]

In otherwords, you would either give them Joel or a bunch of crap.

Why not just say you wouldn't make the trade?

sorry my format wasnt good enough for you.

 

[RickyRubio]

That would no way come close to getting Devin Harris, much less Harris AND Lee. Harris was an All-Star last season entering the prime of his career.

Then I wouldn't do it!

 

[Draco]

I'd trade Bayless, Rudy and Batum for Harris. Quality is more important than quantity, and Harris is the best player of the group. Those three Blazers all have question marks if they can fit as long-term starters in our program. They all have some great upside and it would be difficult to see them leave, but that is what KP has to sacrifice to bring in a young all-star.

I would not trade LMA though; if we ship him out we need a clear upgrade in return. I'd include him in a Chris Paul level of trade. In other words he's virtually untouchable.

 

[RickyRubio]

I'd trade Bayless, Rudy and Batum for Harris. Quality is more important than quantity, and Harris is the best player of the group. Those three Blazers all have question marks if they can fit as long-term starters in our program. They all have some great upside and it would be difficult to see them leave, but that is what KP has to sacrifice to bring in a young all-star.

I would not trade LMA though; if we ship him out we need a clear upgrade in return. I'd include him in a Chris Paul level of trade. In other words he's virtually untouchable.

Your a n00b then. You don't trade both Rudy and Batum. That is just stupid.

 

[Wheels]

I'd happily give up any combination of Bayless, Fernandez, Outlaw, Webster, rights to Claver/Freeland/Koponen, taking back a bad contract. I'd less happily include Batum or Przybilla, but I would depending on how the deal shook out.

Consolidating decent young players into an excellent young player at a big need position would be a big boost to the team's title chances. To be frank, great benches don't win titles. Great starting fives do.

I dont know if I necessarily agree with that.. sure you need a great Starting lineup.. but look at the who the runners up were.

Last year for example. The Lakers are one of (if not the) the Deepest teams in the league. And Their starting 5 has Fisher and Ariza, not exactly lighting up the scoreboard. Orlando had the Starting 5.. yet their bench play didnt do them many favors.


2 Years ago The Celtics Starting 5 pretty much matched the Lakers... yet it was their bench that got them over the hump with play from Powe etc.

3 years ago, The Spurs beat down the Cavs.. The Cavs didnt really have anybody but Lebron so even a Spurs team without depth would have won lol

4 years ago Miami's depth was better than Dallas'

5 Years ago.. this might be the most recent case of the not as deep team winning. Although they were the better team, where the spurs won in 7 against Detroit

6 Years ago Pistons won with all out depth.

Then you get into the Spurs winning some, and the Lakers 3 peat.. and all teams had great Players in the starting 5.. and depth.

 

[B-Roy]

Your a n00b then. You don't trade both Rudy and Batum. That is just stupid.

I would. Rudy and Batum are not THAT special.

 

[MAS RipCity]

Bayless, Rudy, Claver, Future 1st for Harris

Left w/
Harris/Blake/Mills
Roy/Webster
Batum/Outlaw
LMA/Outlaw/Cunningham
Oden/Joel/Pendergraph

 

[Ed O]

I'd be willing to move Rudy for Harris, no question.

Rudy is only two years younger than Devin, and as happy as I am to have him as a Blazer, Harris would step right in and help our starting lineup incredibly.

There's no way, though, that I trade any of the big three, and I'd prefer not to give up Batum or Cunningham, either.

(Just kidding about Cunningham. )

Ed O.

 

[Draco]

I would. Rudy and Batum are not THAT special.

Yes, If we want to pry away the best player on another team we have to give up some value. Sending out our 4th and 5th talents is an acceptable cost.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Does KP view Batum as a starter?

When he drafted Claver he said he views him as a starter (at SF) down the road.


Bayless/Batum/Outlaw/Blake/Pick is a something I think NJ would take a hard look at.

 

[Wheels]

(Just kidding about Cunningham. )
Ed O.

lol you had me going.. I was like.. "wow and I overvalue Rudy?"

 

[LittleAlex]

Does KP view Batum as a starter?

When he drafted Claver he said he views him as a starter (at SF) down the road.


Bayless/Batum/Outlaw/Blake/Pick is a something I think NJ would take a hard look at.

I don't think they would. No one on that list is a proven NBA player, except Blake who has proven he sucks.

Maybe you could swing Rudy, Batum, Blake, and Outlaw. They can then cut Blake and Outlaw and keep Rudy and Batum.

I would pull the trigger on that deal in a second. Rudy will always be second fiddle to Roy and the chances of Batum becoming an all star are very small.

 

[Eastoff]

Rudy goes nowhere. They can Have whatever else they want but Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Rudy, Batum.

why would you keep rudy? he plays the same as roy. you have to let go of things that can't fit. I agree with the rest of your list though.

 

[Idog1976]

Suprised at the extreme LMA love.

I didn't say I would for certain do LMA for Harris I said I would consider it. Really though Harris might be the 3rd best PG in the league. I would rate Bosh, Gasol, Duncan, Boozer and Millsap possibly and a number of other PF's as better then LMA. I would only rate CP3 and maybe Parker or D. Will as better then Harris.

If you can get it done without LMA great if they asked for LMA you have to consider it if you don't lose any additional talent. Likewise I wouldn't want to give up Batum, Rudy and Bayless but you have to consider it for that kind of upgrade at point. Rudy is superflous with Roy, Bayless would be with Harris so really only Rudy would be lost and for Harris you have to do it.

 

[Minstrel]

I dont know if I necessarily agree with that.. sure you need a great Starting lineup.. but look at the who the runners up were.

Last year for example. The Lakers are one of (if not the) the Deepest teams in the league. And Their starting 5 has Fisher and Ariza, not exactly lighting up the scoreboard. Orlando had the Starting 5.. yet their bench play didnt do them many favors.


2 Years ago The Celtics Starting 5 pretty much matched the Lakers... yet it was their bench that got them over the hump with play from Powe etc.

3 years ago, The Spurs beat down the Cavs.. The Cavs didnt really have anybody but Lebron so even a Spurs team without depth would have won lol

4 years ago Miami's depth was better than Dallas'

5 Years ago.. this might be the most recent case of the not as deep team winning. Although they were the better team, where the spurs won in 7 against Detroit

6 Years ago Pistons won with all out depth.

Then you get into the Spurs winning some, and the Lakers 3 peat.. and all teams had great Players in the starting 5.. and depth.

I don't think your summation is accurate at all. LA, Boston, San Antonio, Miami and the previous LA incarnation did not win with depth. In fact, I wouldn't even say Detroit won with "depth." Detroit didn't win with the best 1-2 players, but they absolutely rode their fantastic starting five.

All of those teams won primarily by riding their starters hard. They all had some players off the bench, but not excellent players. They had the types of players you can get with decent drafting at the end of the first round and in the second round and/or wise uses of the MLE or even LLE. None of them were fielding a second unit of players who could start on some teams.

Portland needs some players who won't completely embarrass themselves, but they don't need high-level players (starter-quality or near-starter quality) like Fernandez, Outlaw and Przybilla on the bench. Most of the players that get lionized as "great reserves on championship teams" are actually pretty ordinary players that can be counted on to do a few things when defenses are focused on the superstars. They often then get overpaid or given too large a role on non-descript teams, due to having been shown to "winning role-players," and prove to be nothing special.

So, sure, you need an Eddie House or past-his-prime Jason Williams...you don't need a Rudy Fernandez. A Rudy Fernandez off the bench certainly is nice, but it's less valuable than an improved starting unit.

 

[Idog1976]

I don't think your summation is accurate at all. LA, Boston, San Antonio, Miami and the previous LA incarnation did not win with depth. In fact, I wouldn't even say Detroit won with "depth." Detroit didn't win with the best 1-2 players, but they absolutely rode their fantastic starting five.

All of those teams won primarily by riding their starters hard. They all had some players off the bench, but not excellent players. They had the types of players you can get with decent drafting at the end of the first round and in the second round and/or wise uses of the MLE or even LLE. None of them were fielding a second unit of players who could start on some teams.

Portland needs some players who won't completely embarrass themselves, but they don't need high-level players (starter-quality or near-starter quality) like Fernandez, Outlaw and Przybilla on the bench. Most of the players that get lionized as "great reserves on championship teams" are actually pretty ordinary players that can be counted on to do a few things when defenses are focused on the superstars. They often then get overpaid or given too large a role on non-descript teams, due to having been shown to "winning role-players," and prove to be nothing special.

So, sure, you need an Eddie House or past-his-prime Jason Williams...you don't need a Rudy Fernandez. A Rudy Fernandez off the bench certainly is nice, but it's less valuable than an improved starting unit.

I had similar thoughts about depth. I haven't seen a truly deep team since the late 1980's Pistons that was a really deep team.

Quick question would you do LMA for Harris straight up? Just curious maybe I undervalue LMA but I was not impressed with his playoff performance and I questions his "baller" status. I worry about a Cliff Robinson on steroids effect. Super excellent in the regular season but just kind "Meh" in the playoffs. I'm not saying I despise the guy I just think you have to consider that trade. People laughed me off the board last summer when I suggested LMA for D. Rose I still wonder what that would have been like.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I really don't see the Nets getting rid of Harris unless it's for somebody like Rubio. The only possible way I can see players we're prepared to give up (i.e., non big-three) coming close is if we also took on Bobby Simmons.

I actually was thinking what a nice little roster NJ is accumulating. Terrence Williams was one of my top fave players in this draft, and, assuming he's their SF, they're set at all but PF with very nice players on rookie contracts. Oh, and Harris.