I doubt it's some global marketing plan engineered by the Nets front office.

I believe it goes deeper then that. I believe some Nets players know the roster spots for them on the team are not guaranteed so they are looking out for themselves first and foremost. Veteran players like Deron Williams and Jordan Farmar are also looking out for themselves, everyman for himself it seems. Other teams in the NBA are talking about getting together even with a lockout and working out as a team. With players like Deron and Farmar off playing overseas it will probably be hard for the Nets to do the same.

I believe there is no real team identification or unity at the core of the club. Deron Williams can change all that if and when he signs with us but until then we are a team in flux... What the Nets need to do is acquire a solid veteran player who can bring some stability to this ever changing Nets roster. Until then Deron will probably play a cat and mouse game with the Nets and the uncertainty surrounding this team will continue this year and possibly into 2013...

All successful teams have at least one core player that brings stability to the organization. Our only real core player right now is Brook Lopez. Sure if we can somehow acquire Dwight Howard that would change the face and future of our franchise but I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Can Nene, West, Prince or Ak-47 be that stable leader, that glue guy we so desperately need ?

When the new CBA is finally established and the Nets can offer Deron a contract to sign, I think if he doesn't sign it the hand writing is on the wall and the Nets will have to think long and hard about their future plans for this team. Maybe then we abandon the big three superstar formula and build from the draft and wise trades.

Everything right now hinges on Deron Williams signing with us, and I hope he does. I hate sounding pessimistic but right now the Knicks look like a team and the Nets look like a bunch of guys standing at the bus stop..."Next stop Brooklyn, all aboard ?"

 When the Nets traded for Deron Williams I loved the trade, like many other Nets fans, until I heard the part that Deron could leave us after the 2011-2012 season. I thought unless the Nets were 80-100% convinced that Williams wouldn't leave, I would not have made that deal if I was running the Nets.

I understand all the reasons stated why the deal had to be done and I acknowledge that the "gamble" might be worth taking. But still, I been scratching my head wondering why the Nets front office would take such a big gamble with the future of their club on a player who probably never really considered the Nets as a prime destination before the trade went down.

Then over the weekend it dawned on me that the Nets are following the Mark Cuban philosophy on how to compete in the NBA. Either have a very good team and try contending or have a bad team and get good lottery picks and young players. The worst thing to be is a mediocre team. Kiki and Thorn also stated this belief two years ago.

Then on Friday eLonepb stated that he believed the Nets wouldn't trade Deron. They would let Deron walk before trading him even if it meant getting nothing back in return. Several NetsDaily commentators agreed. This made me start scratching my head again.

It finally dawned on me that the Nets would rather lose Deron and be "terrible" then trade him for some assets that might make them be mediocre at best.

The Nets of course would love to keep Deron, add Howard, and contend for a championship, but if they fail to keep even Deron, I believe they rather go 20-62 then 32-50.

So it is my belief the Nets knew that Deron might walk when they made the trade, and they still were willing to take that risk, not out of desperation but as a logical well thought out strategy.

What do you guys think ?

The draft night trade of Marshon Brooks from the Celtics to the Nets made sense on the Nets part because they obviously traded for a player they coveted. But why did the Celtics make this move ? Why didn't the Celtics just pick the player they wanted, J J Johnson or Jordan Hamilton ? Unless the Celtics knew who Dallas at #26 was going to select, why risk losing the player you really wanted for a future second round draft pick ?

Was Danny Ainge "helping out" Billy King and the Nets and why would he ?  Ainge knew the Nets wanted MarShon badly, so why didn't he ask for something more in return ? Are Ainge and King budddies  ?

The Celtics need big men so you would figure they would try to draft the best one available or did Ainge see no real difference in Hamilton and Johnson, and knew he was guaranteed one of them any way ?

Or did Prokhorov make Ainge an offer he couldn't refuse ?

I'm very happy with trading up for MarShon Brooks but I still can't understand why Boston helped us out...

Thanks Danny !

The Nets are starting to remind me of the Knicks. Chasing any and every player that becomes available.

The Nets should be looking 3-5 years down the road instead of trading their young players and assets for a quick fix now, that will still leave them short when competing against Miami.
——————————-
What happened to Prokhorov’s five year plan? I guess after being in the NBA for a few months, he’s grown impatient. Five years from now Carmelo will be on the downside of his career and Favors will be 24 years old, Brook will be 27 and we would have a great shot of being a powerful contender for years. Why screw that plan up now?
——————————-
It’s becoming obvious that the Nets don’t have a real long range plan. They are flying by the seat of their pants. If we don’t land Carmelo, who will the Nets be chasing next? Quick fixes is what the Knicks are all about. I guess the Nets are not emulating the Thunder but the Knicks.

Instant gratification will be our downfall.

What do you think?

I been getting the distinct impression from Nets management , that they worry about Favors "motor". When I was young they used to call this his "heart". Thorn worried about Favors "heart" before the draft, and I heard college pundits also question his drive and focus when in college.

If the Nets trade Favors it might mean the Nets also wonder if he has the drive and toughness to excel in the NBA.

Remember last week when Billy King was quoted as saying that he thought bringing in Murphy might of lit a spark under Favors. Sounds like they want to get him going harder. Avery Johnson even was quoted several days ago about admonishing Favors, telling him to his face, "Who told you, you were not going to start?".

If Sam Mitchell, Popeye Jones and AJ don't think Favors has that drive and ambition, and toughness required by all great players, maybe that will be the reason Favors is traded.

Where there is a "spark", there's smoke, then fire, then a fire sale.

What do you guys think? Is Favors too soft and laid back or is he just very young and needs time to mature.

P.S. I do not like the idea of trading Favors, even for Carmelo, but I'm just trying to figure out why Nets management would.

The Nets rebuilding plans left me confused and scratching my head. They were taking this player and that in free agency, seemingly without a clue. I, like a lot of Nets fans, was looking for that "star" player which eluded us. What were the Nets doing. Then a few weeks ago I turned the Nets roster  upside  down. It started to become clear to me what they are doing. Their Master Plan!

When looking at the Nets right now, you have to look from the bottom to the top, not top to bottom. Then it makes sense. The Nets have some nice talent going from 12 down.

Exhibit A; Maybe depth chart as of today…

HARRIS/FARMAR
C.LEE/MORROW
OUTLAW/JAMES
FAVORS/HUMPRIES/MAY
LOPEZ/PETRO/MAY

T-WILL 12th man. (Of course he’s not really) But if you get my reasoning, the Nets are being built from the bottom up. We then can add that impact, star, player and we are still covered at all the bases. And then of course if Favors becomes the star or even James, who I love, we might not need that “core” player. Once we couldn’t score LeBron, Wade, Bosh etc. we did the next best thing, built from the bottom to the top. Ingenious…

With cap space and draft picks, plus versatile young talent it should be very easy to mix and match and acquire that player or players that will lead us to the promised land, no... not Brooklyn, but the playoffs as serious contenders.

Any thoughts?

When I started watching the ABA, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the three point shot was new and exciting. For many years it was a shot that was only taken by specialists. Now it seems the three point shot is hoisted and made so frequently that it has changed the game of basketball, for the worse.

Mike Fratello commented a couple of weeks ago that NBA coaches now believe you cannot win in the league without the three point shot being a big part of your game plan.

I believe the game itself has changed with this "trick" shot, and has seriously curtailed the "big" men and their importance to the game. Why work and  go inside when you can pop a three. 

The balance of the game was tipped in favor of the inside game for many years and now it is tipped in favor of the perimeter game. Hand check rules also helped the smaller players but I believe it's the three point shot that has had the most effect in favoring the perimeter game.

It might sound odd but players today have become too good in hitting the three.

What started out as a nice strategy option and exciting, has now become almost routine and dull.

I would be in favor of eliminating the 3pt shot or at least moving the line back another six inches.

What are your thoughts on this matter?