So Basically, this guy says half the guys we've acquired are a bunch of losers.

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jul 21 2008, 11:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Still though the question remains why would LBJ come to a team to start rebuilding again? Because with the current team, there is no way that it would attract him unless like Denny said they become better than average and maybe stars in this league.

The biggest thing to remember is that with the Cavs, they've reached the finals already, and just this past playoffs lost to the best team in the NBA (of course the Celtics) and next season they'll be contending again, they also have better starters, and a better bench. A piece or two away from winning the championship next season IMHO, and also being a threat to become a dynasty for a few years. (kinda like the spurs or lakers)</div>

The Cavs got that far because of LBJ.

It isn't difficult to put together a better supporting cast than what Ferry has done.

 

[CelticKing]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 21 2008, 11:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jul 21 2008, 11:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Still though the question remains why would LBJ come to a team to start rebuilding again? Because with the current team, there is no way that it would attract him unless like Denny said they become better than average and maybe stars in this league.

The biggest thing to remember is that with the Cavs, they've reached the finals already, and just this past playoffs lost to the best team in the NBA (of course the Celtics) and next season they'll be contending again, they also have better starters, and a better bench. A piece or two away from winning the championship next season IMHO, and also being a threat to become a dynasty for a few years. (kinda like the spurs or lakers)</div>

The Cavs got that far because of LBJ.

It isn't difficult to put together a better supporting cast than what Ferry has done.
</div>

No question cpaw, that Danny has done a very bad job so far, but when you compare the two teams at this point, the Cavs are right there competing for the championship, while if you had LBJ with the current Nets team, they might win a first round series.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jul 22 2008, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 21 2008, 11:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jul 21 2008, 11:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Still though the question remains why would LBJ come to a team to start rebuilding again? Because with the current team, there is no way that it would attract him unless like Denny said they become better than average and maybe stars in this league.

The biggest thing to remember is that with the Cavs, they've reached the finals already, and just this past playoffs lost to the best team in the NBA (of course the Celtics) and next season they'll be contending again, they also have better starters, and a better bench. A piece or two away from winning the championship next season IMHO, and also being a threat to become a dynasty for a few years. (kinda like the spurs or lakers)</div>

The Cavs got that far because of LBJ.

It isn't difficult to put together a better supporting cast than what Ferry has done.
</div>

No question cpaw, that Danny has done a very bad job so far, but when you compare the two teams at this point, the Cavs are right there competing for the championship, while if you had LBJ with the current Nets team, they might win a first round series.
</div>

What is the point of comparing the Nets of today with the Cavs of today?

 

[CelticKing]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 22 2008, 12:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jul 22 2008, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 21 2008, 11:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jul 21 2008, 11:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Still though the question remains why would LBJ come to a team to start rebuilding again? Because with the current team, there is no way that it would attract him unless like Denny said they become better than average and maybe stars in this league.

The biggest thing to remember is that with the Cavs, they've reached the finals already, and just this past playoffs lost to the best team in the NBA (of course the Celtics) and next season they'll be contending again, they also have better starters, and a better bench. A piece or two away from winning the championship next season IMHO, and also being a threat to become a dynasty for a few years. (kinda like the spurs or lakers)</div>

The Cavs got that far because of LBJ.

It isn't difficult to put together a better supporting cast than what Ferry has done.
</div>

No question cpaw, that Danny has done a very bad job so far, but when you compare the two teams at this point, the Cavs are right there competing for the championship, while if you had LBJ with the current Nets team, they might win a first round series.
</div>

What is the point of comparing the Nets of today with the Cavs of today?
</div>

Because you said the Cavs got that for the reason that they have LBJ, of course I agree with that but if you're to build a team ready to contend in 2010 and be able to attract him to come to Brooklyn, this hasn't been a great start so far, when you compare the Cavs which are ready as of right now to contend and will only get better with free agency or trades.

 

[Chutney]

The Nets will definitely have to show a Sixers-esque level of success if they want to even think of luring Lebron away, IMO. A lot of posters in this forum have pointed to things like the Jay-Z connection, the allure of the big city, Chinese endorsements, and the potential to be the centerpiece for an up-and-coming team. I don't think any of those are all that convincing though. If Lebron is willing to give up the biggest possible contract for success (I still doubt that) its going to take more than just a collection of lottery talents with the promise of potential. They'll had to have shown some measure of success already.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jul 22 2008, 12:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Because you said the Cavs got that for the reason that they have LBJ, of course I agree with that but if you're to build a team ready to contend in 2010 and be able to attract him to come to Brooklyn, this hasn't been a great start so far, when you compare the Cavs which are ready as of right now to contend and will only get better with free agency or trades.</div>

How isn't this a great start? The first order of business was creating a better cap situation. The second thing was to get rid of the dead weight and toxic lockerroom players from last season.

It has to be torn down before it can be rebuilt.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 22 2008, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Nets will definitely have to show a Sixers-esque level of success if they want to even think of luring Lebron away, IMO. A lot of posters in this forum have pointed to things like the Jay-Z connection, the allure of the big city, Chinese endorsements, and the potential to be the centerpiece for an up-and-coming team. I don't think any of those are all that convincing though. If Lebron is willing to give up the biggest possible contract for success (I still doubt that) its going to take more than just a collection of lottery talents with the promise of potential. They'll had to have shown some measure of success already.</div>

Even if the Nets have to demonstrate some success, they don't have to do it this season

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Of course if the Nets keep losing and adding lottery picks, maybe the picture will change.</div>

I like how he just blows by this point, even though he brought it up himself.

The Nets are doing a great rebuilding job so far. This guy doesn't give any alternative plan that would have been better.

The fact is that the Nets are no worse than last year, but are in a far better position going forward - and that has nothing to do with LeBron or any other free agent.

 

[Chutney]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 22 2008, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 22 2008, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Nets will definitely have to show a Sixers-esque level of success if they want to even think of luring Lebron away, IMO. A lot of posters in this forum have pointed to things like the Jay-Z connection, the allure of the big city, Chinese endorsements, and the potential to be the centerpiece for an up-and-coming team. I don't think any of those are all that convincing though. If Lebron is willing to give up the biggest possible contract for success (I still doubt that) its going to take more than just a collection of lottery talents with the promise of potential. They'll had to have shown some measure of success already.</div>

Even if the Nets have to demonstrate some success, they don't have to do it this season
</div>
Oh definitely. And for the record, I wasn't saying the Nets couldn't do it. I think they're on the right path and its anyone's guess if the talent they assemble can reach some level of success in the near future.

 

[Malorkayel]

I follow Berri and moneyball. He's good with backing up his reasoning with stats and numbers. His prediction is if every player on the team remain the same from previous year, it's easy to chart wins/loses. He goes by a win ratio, it has decent accuracy.

He's not a crystal ball guy. He'll be wrong if the young players on the Nets have break out year. But, because basketball is only 5 starters, it's one of the easiest sports to predict base on previous stats.


Carter/Harris is consistent. He's betting Yi/Lopez/TBA starting SF will suck. Sorry to say this, but he has a good chance to be right. He's stated young players usually need 3 years experience to make a difference in NBA.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Malorkayel @ Jul 22 2008, 01:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I follow Berri and moneyball. He's good with backing up his reasoning with stats and numbers. His prediction is if every player on the team remain the same from previous year, it's easy to chart wins/loses. He goes by a win ratio, it has decent accuracy.

He's not a crystal ball guy. He'll be wrong if the young players on the Nets have break out year. But, because basketball is only 5 starters, it's one of the easiest sports to predict base on previous stats.


Carter/Harris is consistent. He's betting Yi/Lopez/TBA starting SF will suck. Sorry to say this, but he has a good chance to be right. He's stated young players usually need 3 years experience to make a difference in NBA.</div>

But the starters will play significantly less minutes, and the bench players who make up those minutes will be much stronger than last year.

 

[Malorkayel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jul 22 2008, 01:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Malorkayel @ Jul 22 2008, 01:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I follow Berri and moneyball. He's good with backing up his reasoning with stats and numbers. His prediction is if every player on the team remain the same from previous year, it's easy to chart wins/loses. He goes by a win ratio, it has decent accuracy.

He's not a crystal ball guy. He'll be wrong if the young players on the Nets have break out year. But, because basketball is only 5 starters, it's one of the easiest sports to predict base on previous stats.


Carter/Harris is consistent. He's betting Yi/Lopez/TBA starting SF will suck. Sorry to say this, but he has a good chance to be right. He's stated young players usually need 3 years experience to make a difference in NBA.</div>

But the starters will play significantly less minutes, and the bench players who make up those minutes will be much stronger than last year.
</div>

He did pick Celtics to go to the Championship during October last year based on his numbers. Yet, he picked the Bulls to be #2 on East Conf. Berri is like a stock analyst. He's not much different from the people that does the weekly power rankings. But his wins model is more tangible than the usual fan gut feelings.

Berri is saying he has no confidence in Nets coach to improve this new team of young players. It's not far reaching, he's also said the same of the Bucks team... their new team with Richard Jefferson will only get them 2 more total wins from last year.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Malorkayel @ Jul 22 2008, 02:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jul 22 2008, 01:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Malorkayel @ Jul 22 2008, 01:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I follow Berri and moneyball. He's good with backing up his reasoning with stats and numbers. His prediction is if every player on the team remain the same from previous year, it's easy to chart wins/loses. He goes by a win ratio, it has decent accuracy.

He's not a crystal ball guy. He'll be wrong if the young players on the Nets have break out year. But, because basketball is only 5 starters, it's one of the easiest sports to predict base on previous stats.


Carter/Harris is consistent. He's betting Yi/Lopez/TBA starting SF will suck. Sorry to say this, but he has a good chance to be right. He's stated young players usually need 3 years experience to make a difference in NBA.</div>

But the starters will play significantly less minutes, and the bench players who make up those minutes will be much stronger than last year.
</div>

He did pick Celtics to go to the Championship during October last year based on his numbers. Yet, he picked the Bulls to be #2 on East Conf. Berri is like a stock analyst. He's not much different from the people that does the weekly power rankings. But his wins model is more tangible than the usual fan gut feelings.

Berri is saying he has no confidence in Nets coach to improve this new team of young players. It's not far reaching, he's also said the same of the Bucks team... their new team with Richard Jefferson will only get them 2 more total wins from last year.
</div>

Even if you buy his premise that these things can be quantified and analyzed the way he is doing it, and you think his formulas are credible, his knowledge is impeccable and his logic is without fault, in this case he is still not saying anything significant.

Of course, most people don't meet these criteria, so what little significance there is just goes down from there.

 

[kievitt]

He makes it seem as though the Nets are building around Hayes, Yi, Najera, and Dooling. When in fact they're building around Devin Harris, Yi, and the rookies. Think about 2 more years of lottery picks added to that. The Nets have acquired and are continuing to acquire young assets who could either A) become great players within the next two years or B) be used as the "assets" that they are to acquire a star player that would potentially attract a LeBron or Wade or Bosh in 2010. Not only are the Nets not finished this offseason, they still have 2 full years to mesh, develop the young guys, attract free agents, and most likely draft 2 lottery picks (possibly 3 if Dallas somehow falls off considerably by then). I'm not worried the slightest bit that the Nets won't be competitive enough in two years to attract a top tier free agent. There is no reason not to believe that they could potentially be that one top tier free agent away from championship contention at that point.

 

[Malorkayel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jul 22 2008, 02:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Malorkayel @ Jul 22 2008, 02:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jul 22 2008, 01:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Malorkayel @ Jul 22 2008, 01:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I follow Berri and moneyball. He's good with backing up his reasoning with stats and numbers. His prediction is if every player on the team remain the same from previous year, it's easy to chart wins/loses. He goes by a win ratio, it has decent accuracy.

He's not a crystal ball guy. He'll be wrong if the young players on the Nets have break out year. But, because basketball is only 5 starters, it's one of the easiest sports to predict base on previous stats.


Carter/Harris is consistent. He's betting Yi/Lopez/TBA starting SF will suck. Sorry to say this, but he has a good chance to be right. He's stated young players usually need 3 years experience to make a difference in NBA.</div>

But the starters will play significantly less minutes, and the bench players who make up those minutes will be much stronger than last year.
</div>

He did pick Celtics to go to the Championship during October last year based on his numbers. Yet, he picked the Bulls to be #2 on East Conf. Berri is like a stock analyst. He's not much different from the people that does the weekly power rankings. But his wins model is more tangible than the usual fan gut feelings.

Berri is saying he has no confidence in Nets coach to improve this new team of young players. It's not far reaching, he's also said the same of the Bucks team... their new team with Richard Jefferson will only get them 2 more total wins from last year.
</div>

Even if you buy his premise that these things can be quantified and analyzed the way he is doing it, and you think his formulas are credible, his knowledge is impeccable and his logic is without fault, in this case he is still not saying anything significant.

Of course, most people don't meet these criteria, so what little significance there is just goes down from there.
</div>

I agree with you. Berri are for people that like stats and fantasy sports and NBA 2k. There are fans that like stats and fans that don't. I find his system entertaining and I wonder why he has trouble predicting teams like the Bulls and Raptors. Berri picked Ben Wallace to add 15 wins.

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

We sign Kenyon Martin with the MLE :|

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 21 2008, 10:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And the award for the longest thread title goes to................

PEGS!!!!!

Congratulations</div>

He was hacked by FOMW.

 

[J.S]

Every last Bastard writer who lacks any insight is going to write articles stating the perception that a rebuilding team tanks, and they will use a range of piss poor arguements in hoping that their shit sticks to the wall.

 

[Malorkayel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jerkstore @ Jul 22 2008, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Every last Bastard writer who lacks any insight is going to write articles stating the perception that a rebuilding team tanks, and they will use a range of piss poor arguements in hoping that their shit sticks to the wall.</div>

LoL yeah, that's one way of looking at it. He likes to pick on rebuilding teams and then rub it in by saying they didn't add any new superstars.

He credited Camby as one of the highest win producers ever. If Nets had landed him, with enough minutes Camby can take almost any team to the playoffs. That is if he stays healthy.

Edit: Oh, Berri also rank Kidd as one of the highest win producers. However, the Nets did almost the same without Kidd on the roster.

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

Camby blows

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Malorkayel @ Jul 22 2008, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jerkstore @ Jul 22 2008, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Every last Bastard writer who lacks any insight is going to write articles stating the perception that a rebuilding team tanks, and they will use a range of piss poor arguements in hoping that their shit sticks to the wall.</div>

LoL yeah, that's one way of looking at it. He likes to pick on rebuilding teams and then rub it in by saying they didn't add any new superstars.

He credited Camby as one of the highest win producers ever. If Nets had landed him, with enough minutes Camby can take almost any team to the playoffs. That is if he stays healthy.

Edit: Oh, Berri also rank Kidd as one of the highest win producers. However, the Nets did almost the same without Kidd on the roster.
</div>

I've never been a fan of Berri's crap and his vast overrating of Camby is hilarious.

 

[ly_yng]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jul 22 2008, 11:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Malorkayel @ Jul 22 2008, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>

LoL yeah, that's one way of looking at it. He likes to pick on rebuilding teams and then rub it in by saying they didn't add any new superstars.

He credited Camby as one of the highest win producers ever. If Nets had landed him, with enough minutes Camby can take almost any team to the playoffs. That is if he stays healthy.

Edit: Oh, Berri also rank Kidd as one of the highest win producers. However, the Nets did almost the same without Kidd on the roster.</div>

I've never been a fan of Berri's crap and his vast overrating of Camby is hilarious.
</div>

So, he's overrating Camby and Ben Wallace, eh?

Sounds like someone without a suitable metric for tracking the defensive prowess of forwards and centers. Sounds like someone who uses blocks as his ONLY metric of the defensive ability of a big man.

Sounds like EXACTLY the type of person who would underrate a player like Najera.

I've come to find that the big difference between Hollinger and Berri is that Hollinger at least will acknowledge, occasionally, that there are systematic flaws in his methodology. Hollinger doesn't go around and pretend like PER predicts the defensive prowess of a guy like Kevin Garnett. Berri seems to have no such qualms doing that with WS, which is really just intellectually dishonest.

 

[GMJ]

Can we please try to stay on topic.

GMJ