This is a really interesting piece on the current state of the Brooklyn Nets. There's some good points made such as the Nets trying to clean up their books to make selling the team easier.
Here's the article -
In the latest installment of the NBA Front Office series, Tom Penn (playing the role of GM), Chad Ford (assistant GM), George Karl (head coach), Amin Elhassan (scouting director) and Kevin Pelton (analytics director) debate how to dismantle and rebuild the Brooklyn Nets. With Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov looking to sell the team, what steps does the front office have to take to get the franchise back in order? With its future heavily mortgaged in a win-now strategy that failed in epic proportion, the job will not be easy.
Want in on the conversation or have a question for one of the guys? Use #NBAFrontOffice.
Tom Penn: Let's assess exactly how bad the situation is going forward from a financial and asset depletion standpoint and its significance to our franchise. And secondly, let's look at exactly what moves we can make that would prepare this team for a sale that would offload financial liabilities and bring back future assets that would tell a different story for the long-term value of the franchise. So, Chad, give us an assessment of how bad the financial situation is and an update on just how many of our future assets we've given away.
Chad Ford: Our payroll this year is a little more than $90 million; that's $27.5 million over the cap, which means we are going to owe a tax of about $13.8 million. Plus, we are about $13.8 million over the tax line, so we are actually going to owe about $26 million in taxes and luxury taxes this year. That brings our total figure to about $116 million, by far the biggest in the league.
By Nick Silva
Going into next season, that figure goes down. Actually, we will be under the tax for 2015-16 because we are going to get Kevin Garnett's $12 million salary off the books. But we'll still have roughly $80 million in payroll. Things don't really start looking up until 2016-17, when we get Joe Johnson's monstrous $24.9 million contract off our books. At that point, our only major contract on the books will be Deron Williams, who will be in the last year of his deal at $22.3 million.
As for draft assets, there's only bad news. Atlanta can swap picks with us this year, which they certainly will do, because they're the top team in the East right now. That means our first-round pick will move from a midround first-round pick to a late first-round pick. In 2016, we send our pick to Boston, which is unprotected, so Boston gets it no matter what. In 2017, Boston can swap our picks. However, given where Boston is, I don't know how realistic it is that they'll be better than us in 2017. But it's possible -- they're blowing things up, too. And then in 2018, once again, we send our first-round pick to Boston unprotected. So we don't actually own, outright, our first-round pick until 2019.
Penn: And that is as much as you can possibly give away draft picks and draft rights under the rules -- alternatively giving away unconditionally, and alternatively giving away the chance for someone to swap. It's as bad as it gets. So we need to look then at deals for our best player, our best asset. That's usually the way you do a blowup; you first give away or trade away your best asset. Who would that be? And why?
George Karl: Our best asset is our best young player: Mason Plumlee.
Kevin Pelton: Agreed. Plumlee's got the most trade value on the team because he's the one guy who you can say has production that's dramatically exceeding his salary. The other guys who are producing for you all are doing so at a tremendous cost.
Penn: OK, we keep Plumlee because at least he's young and we can build around him. What about the high-salary players? Who's the most likely player we could move?
Amin Elhassan: I would say Garnett, to a team that's looking for a backup big, a defensive player. He's got an expiring deal and it's not that bad. Of course, that's relative. He has some value on the trade market. But he also has a no-trade clause; he can veto any deal we get. So it would have to be a team that has a legitimate chance at winning.
Ford: I also think Brook Lopez is potentially movable, and the nice thing about Lopez is he can opt in to his contract next season at $16.7 million. It's not a given that he does; he could decide to opt out and get a longer deal, but there's no way he's going to make that salary next year. So he might opt for job security. And moving him now might allow for getting at least a salary off the books for next season. I think a moderate player and cap relief in return is the best case here. And obviously there's interest around the league, as we've seen in recent talks.
Penn: Coach, what do you think about Lopez if you're thinking about a trade involving him? Because I think he's a little bit of a fallen angel who, if he could get a fresh start, could be a lot better.
Karl: I haven't seen him play, mainly because he's been hurt and the team's made me sick when I've watched them play. Lopez and Plumlee simply don't play well together. I think the statistics will prove that out, but I do like Lopez and Plumlee as big guys. And I don't like big guys. But Lopez can score. You can throw him the ball and you can run an offense with him in that position. He doesn't rebound and he doesn't like to defend.
But he's got some skills. He can make the 18-footer, you can throw him the ball and double-team him. He's going to get a shot you're going to like. Plumlee's a good pick-and-roll dude, and he understands the value of a guy rolling to the tip of the rim.
Pelton: I agree with Coach. This hasn't been a very effective lineup, anyway. I think that part of the reason we're trying to trade Lopez is not only his salary but also because he just doesn't fit. To answer Coach, they were minus-13.7 points per 100 possessions so far this season when they tried to play Lopez and Plumlee together. Those guys are both centers.
Ford: Agreed. It's not like if we keep Lopez this team is a playoff contender. I don't actually think we are really hurt by moving Lopez. Really, I think it gives more minutes to Plumlee, and I think he's the guy of the future. As for Lopez, I agree with Tom -- he's 26 and has a 19 PER this season [it's been 21.9 in January]. He's gotten better. But Coach hit on all his flaws. If nothing else you can get a young player back; maybe not an elite player. That's at least a young asset who might pan out, might turn into something else. We don't have draft picks, so there has to be some way of getting them back, even if it's second-round picks or low first-round picks. It's better than what we have.
Elhassan: Here's the issue that I have with blowing up this team: With all the pick obligations that we have moving forward, can we afford to go into a dramatic rebuild? Traditionally, the reward for being bad is that consolation prize of a high pick. We don't have that consolation prize anymore; we don't have it pretty much for the next four to five years. So can we really undertake this? Are we really doing more damage to the value of the franchise by basically fulfilling our pick obligations to other teams while we either get scraps, in the form of a swap, or nothing? Does that really help the value of a franchise? How do you build this if you're the new owner and everything is out the door already?
Penn: Yes, this is not a "tanking for the draft" strategy, because there are no assets to do that. Rather, it's the "create a blank slate" scenario, where you get closer to a blank slate that will attract new owners, because new owners typically are dreamers in their own right and believe they can succeed and fix anything. The more you're able to offer a blank slate, the better. This is a glamour free-agent market in New York City, so the idea of getting lean and mean and then getting much better, much faster via free agency is really a lot of what you're selling as well. It's really all about dumping rather than adding at this point.
Elhassan: Right. But I meant the overall strategy of just trying to tear down everything that we have. I think you guys have a much more optimistic outlook about Lopez than I do. While he is a gifted scorer, I think when you look at that price tag, he's pricey for someone who, when he's not scoring the ball, literally brings zero value. I don't know if a first-round pick is even out there to get for him. Whatever team is acquiring him also has to deal with this massive price tag. I think it'll be a lot harder to move Lopez than people think.
Penn: Great point. If that's the case, the only guy who really matters is Williams. So do we throw Plumlee in a deal with Williams just to move Williams' contract -- as bad as that is? What about Williams in general? Does he have anything left?
Karl: He scares me. Ever since he's been in Brooklyn and New Jersey, he's been a different player. Because of his injuries, he slowed down -- the West was better for him; the East is too slow. But if you're going to add Plumlee, why not get rid of Johnson's bigger contract first?
Ford: Williams is making $22.3 in 2016 and Johnson's contract ends at the end of the 2015-16 season. So that extra $22 million for Williams in that last year, I think that's the point Tom was making.
Penn: We want to sell this idea of having mega-free-agency flexibility in the year Kevin Durant and all those guys are available, which also is when the cap goes up (because of the new TV deals). So the narrative becomes "2016-17 is when the team will be restored to glory." So that's why you try to move Williams first, because in 2015-16 you can probably move Johnson when he's on a one-year deal.
Karl: Well, I'm going to tell you right now that if you get rid of Plumlee, Lopez and Williams, I don't know if Johnson's going to play. He's now moving into the Melo area ---he's the superstar on a really bad roster. You watch; all of a sudden Johnson's knees are going to start hurting. Or maybe it's his back ...
[laughter]
Ford: I think a month ago one interesting potential Williams trade came about with the Kings if Plumlee was in the deal. I think Plumlee's a guy who the Kings are interested in. They're obviously very aggressive. They've got a new owner who's willing to spend money. The assets we'd get back aren't necessarily great, but there is talk that maybe a guy like Nik Stauskas might be available, who was the No. 8 pick in the draft last year. It might be something worth exploring, especially if the message to the new owners is that 2016-17 is the "blank slate" year.
Penn: OK, so someone please sell Williams for me. Tell me what he's got left, if anything.
Pelton: He's still about an average starting point guard. Perhaps average-to-below-average starting point guard. But there are teams for whom Williams would actually be an upgrade. It's just a question of whether one of them gets desperate enough. Consider the "arms race" in the West; is there any team willing to pay Williams' exorbitant salary in order to make a relatively limited upgrade at the position?
Penn: I hear you. Can a team fix him? Can someone get him back to elite? That's the question. He's playing at an average level, but he's proved at times, when in shape and motivated, that he can be special. But that was a while ago.
Robert Mayer/USA TODAY SportsWilliams' injuries have robbed him of athleticism and perhaps motivation.
Elhassan: Yeah, I don't think "elite" is walking through that door. To be honest, I think he can be a productive player, but again it goes back to the same thing: Who's willing to take on that contract for that many years for simply a productive player? It's an incredible hamstring; it's the reason we're trying to get rid of him, right? Because we'd keep him if he could be productive. But that salary is an enormous albatross, so we'd have to find someone really desperate. The good news is Chad's right -- the Sacramento Kings are the team to fit that bill as far as a team that's desperate enough to do silly deals. So I would pursue that, and if Plumlee's the cost for getting rid of Williams, then make it happen. At the end of the day, I like Plumlee as a prospect, but is he someone who's going to be a franchise cornerstone? No. There's a Mason Plumlee in every other draft.
Penn: In this scenario, the goal is to simply bring back one less year on a contract. There should be plenty of options out there. Even big two-year contracts are fine, as long as you're getting rid of that third year.
Pelton: The problem, Tom, is we have all of those big two-year contracts, too.
[laughter]
Ford: That's cold-blooded.
Karl: Williams looks like he can score better than he can play point guard at this point. He would be a good off-guard playmaker. The game is moving toward teams that put playmakers on the court at every position, or at least three or four of the positions. Williams still can use his big body and figure out how to score points. When Jarrett Jack and Williams are in the game together, they seem to play well. Again, I imagine the statistics prove that out. In so many teams I see now, when you have two or three playmakers handling the ball and running different types of pick-and-rolls and making good, solid offensive decisions -- simple offensive decisions -- the game seems to bring a flow. And when Williams is at point guard by himself, I don't feel that.
Pelton: One fit I think could be interesting -- it's not technically putting him next to another point guard, but it's similar because of the way they run their offense -- is the Houston Rockets, who would play Williams next to James Harden and effectively be a secondary ball handler/creator for them. And I think that team could get desperate for an upgrade offensively at point guard with Patrick Beverley in a bit of a shooting slump and maybe, just maybe, swallow that contract.
Karl: I saw Houston play last week and I think they're going to try to use Josh Smith as a playmaking forward.
Elhassan: That's the only value he has for them, because he [dang] sure can't shoot.
[laughter]
Elhassan: He can't finish around the rim as well as he used to, so the one offensive trait that he has that's useful is the ability to create and pass lobs to Dwight Howard, like Blake Griffin does for DeAndre Jordan off of short rolls.
Penn: Let's turn our attention to the draft-pick situation. There's just no way to fix it other than to try and get picks back. But the crusher in this: Those unconditional picks went to Boston, and what awesome assets Boston has right now to add those in their arsenal as trade pieces. Those look to be excellent picks over the next couple of years.
"
I think the challenge is to kind of make some players with free agency, or finding someone in the D-League. And in free agency I mean maybe the $2 million guy or mid-level guy, but likely the low-level guy. You have to find a player who fits the coach, fits Brooklyn. ... You're going to have to find that guy you can weave into the culture you're building.
" -- George Karl
Ford: Danny Ainge is praying we're going to do exactly what we're talking about doing right now. If we blow this up, it'll be great for Boston. But you know, Tom, I think the only player on our roster who can warrant a trade for a first-round pick is Plumlee. If you trade him, you're trading a second-year player who's actually performed well this season in exchange for a player down the road who's an unknown. I'm not even sure that's worth the swap.
Karl: Tom, I think back to my time in Denver and we made the Allen Iverson trade. We were over the tax. And basically the Kroenkes said, "Now we only sign minimum players. That's it." [Then-Nuggets VP of basketball operations] Mark Warkentien did a great job of challenging the scouts and everybody that we had on staff to find a player, a 20-minute player, every year for the next three years. And we came up with Arron Afflalo [we got him out of Detroit], then we got "Birdman" (Chris Andersen) off the streets of Denver. I think the challenge is to kind of make some players with free agency, or find someone in the D-League. And in free agency I mean maybe the $2 million guy or mid-level guy, but likely the low-level guy. You have to find a player who fits the coach and fits Brooklyn. You know, Robert Covington in Philadelphia is an interesting cat. You're going to have to find that guy you can weave into the culture you're building. Find that diamond in the rough somewhere in Europe or in the D-League.
Penn: Yeah, I've been through this. When the owner is attempting to sell the franchise, it's just something that absolutely shakes the team to its foundation and creates a scenario for havoc. This isn't a quiet, rumored sale. This is an absentee owner hiring a broker to go sell the team. Operationally, it's going to be a complete mess; it'll be a real challenge to do anything under traditional circumstances.
Pelton: Tom, do the owners just want the leanest books possible?
Penn: Typically a new owner wants to see the leanest books possible because they are not thinking short-term like we are. They are thinking about the big, long-term value of the franchise. And they're thinking about reducing short-term exposure instead of creating short-term winning. The owners in Philadelphia right now are in such a long-term view of their franchise that they're willing to go through all of this losing. So a new owner, to get into this market, is highly likely to be thinking and prioritizing the short-term financial problems, getting flexibility instead of wanting to get in there operationally like we're thinking and fixing it right away. So that's why you might see very illogical deals coming soon from Brooklyn.
Ford: Everything Brooklyn's done to this point is illogical. You know, we're talking about shaking the foundation; the foundation has been shaken for years. There's no short-term fix for us. Even if Prokhorov was keeping this team and said "Spend more money," I think spending more money has been part of the problem in Brooklyn. Sometimes having unlimited assets is not the blessing you think it is.
I think in a lot of ways this forces us to be more strategic and, like Coach Karl said, forces the scouting staff to have to go find those guys in Europe or in the D-League. Find the next Hassan Whiteside, and start to be very strategic in how we build this team; almost like a small-market team. Sometimes that can be rejuvenating for a franchise, instead of just relying on money. Now we rely on scouting talent and being creative with the cap. And I think that might be a very good thing for us. The Nets have done none of that since Prokhorov came in and took over.
Topic: The current state of the Brooklyn Nets (Read 9721 times)