I think the Nets are somewhere between the second and fourth-best team in the East-- and yes, that leaves a lot of wiggle room. I can see them being better than Indiana or Chicago because I generally think those teams are overrated. But I don't think they're in Miami's league. If Pierce and KG were going to make that big an impact, we would have won more than 41 games with them last year.
As for the rest... the dirty secret of sports is that people love great teams. We talk about competitive balance, but does anyone really wish Bird's Celtics had been forced to trade McHale before his first big contract extension, or the Lakers of the same era had to ditch Michael Cooper or Byron Scott, or the Jordan-era Bulls couldn't afford to pay a good power forward to go with Jordan and Pippen's max contracts?
People are criticizing MLB in this thread, but it's a good example. People hate that the Yankees can buy players now, but for the first 65 years of the American League, they leveraged their huge competitive advantage into Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, etc, and everyone thinks those were the Good Old Days.
There will always be competitive imbalance, because superstars sell and nobody outside of a very small geographical area really cares if the Sacramento Kings or Kansas City Royals suck.
It's more important to be smart, no matter what the odds you're facing, and that's where I have some hope that those later draft picks we got from the Nets will be worth something: these Nets are built for the short-term, and not very intelligently, IMO. Their clock is ticking, loudly.