The Nets were swept out of the first round by the Celtics. They now face major offseason questions surrounding Kyrie Irving, Ben Simmons and Steve Nash. Chris Mannix and Howard Beck weigh in on the future of Brooklyn.
Mannix: OK, Beck, three years after the Kevin Durant/Kyrie Irving era in Brooklyn and the Nets have a playoff series win to prove it. This is a major offseason for a number of reasons, so let’s break them down. Start with Kyrie Irving, who could become a free agent this summer: What kind of contract, if any, should Brooklyn offer him?
Stream: Honestly, the Nets should get out of the Kyrie business altogether. As talented as he is, he’s easily the most frustrating and unreliable star in the league (followed closely by teammate Ben Simmons). Irving has played just 103 games for the Nets over three seasons, missing the other 123 due to injuries, his refusal to get vaccinated and a mysterious two-week hiatus a year ago. This is not a guy you want to spend $35 million a year on. And yet… he’s Kevin Durant’s friend, and KD wants him there.
So here’s my stance if I’m the Nets: If Kyrie opts out and becomes a free agent, I’ll let others set the market, because there won’t be much of a market. Teams aren’t clamoring to sign him. So I offer him a short-term deal, two years or one plus one, with per game incentives, and possibly below the total maximum. Under no circumstances should they give him a full five-year contract (as a free agent) or a four-year extension (if he opts). You can’t let him walk for nothing. But you can’t overcommit either. To accept?
Mannix: In theory… yes. There are countless reasons not to commit to Kyrie. You just expressed them well. But you missed the most salient point. You say teams aren’t clamoring to sign him. I say it only takes one and that team I might being out there. And what if Kyrie is offered a maximum of four years? what do you do then?
Stream: Yes, the well-known NBA axiom is: “It only takes one,” and maybe some team is willing to take that leap. But based on my cursory discussions with people around the league, I really don’t think anyone is offering Kyrie a four-year maximum at this stage. If someone does, you probably have to match it. But the goal has to be fewer years and money below the maximum. In any case, Kyrie is almost certainly back, which begs the question: Can he afford to have two mercurial co-stars alongside Durant? Are you sure Ben Simmons is the correct third star? Do you keep it or flip it?
Mannix: I don’t think it’s keeping it or flipping it with Simmons, whose market is drier than Kyrie’s. The three years and more than $100 million left on his contract make Simmons difficult to trade in ideal circumstances, and these aren’t ideal. It’s pretty clear, according to reports, that the Nets feel like Simmons abandoned them, or at least didn’t put forth his best effort to come back. What kind of value would teams trade for him now? And let’s not forget: Brooklyn gave up James Harden to get it!
Stream: I think we agree, the most likely scenario is the Nets’ open camp with Durant, Irving and Simmons at the core. Assuming everyone is healthy, engaged, and eligible for 82 games, that’s pretty good! The Nets should be a contender on that basis alone, as long as no one misses out in the middle of the season. With Joe Harris and Seth Curry healthy (who also came on that deal with Harden), the Nets will have two elite shooters to go along with their three stars. So is it enough? And is Steve Nash still the right coach for this group? What else should the Nets do to get back in the mix with Boston, Milwaukee, Miami and Philly in this suddenly crowded upper tier from the East?
Scroll to Continue
Mannix: Before I get to Nash — and I have a strong opinion on that — I want to make it clear that despite all the potential drama, there is a champion team in Brooklyn. Think about it: KD is still K.D.Kyrie, with a full season, is as good as a second star and Simmons, without the pressure of having to be a big player and with a collection of shooters around him (Harris, Curry) is going to be a great-time. weapon as midfielder and defense. That’s as enviable a list as it sounds.
OK, Nash: I think you have to move on. I understand that he had a lot to deal with this season. But the playoffs exposed him as a limited coach in the game, in my opinion. And training, especially in the postseason, matters (sorry, Shaq). Nash vs. Ime Udoka was like Trevor Berbick vs. Mike Tyson. He wasn’t close. To begin with, Nash was an unconventional employee. He had not been a full-time coach at any level and did not seem to aspire to be. I’m not saying that all coaches have to be fans like Tom Thibodeau, but I think you have to have more passion for it. It’s hindsight, but the Nets had Udoka on Nash’s staff last season. They had to see how good he was. Where would this team be if Udoka had been the head coach? He could still be playing. Brooklyn needs to make a change. Thinking?
Stream: Nash hasn’t been very good, but I don’t think his training has even been in the top 10 on Things That Sunk the Nets this season. His roster was too guard-heavy, too old in the frontcourt (hello, LaMarcus Aldridge and Blake Griffin) and generally lacked reliable players in the postseason. They gave away their best role players in Harden’s first deal with the Rockets, then traded Harden for a $35 million conundrum who never played a minute. It’s not Nash’s fault that Harden appeared out of shape and then bitter about the situation when Irving couldn’t play. And it’s not Nash’s fault that Irving chose to miss two-thirds of the season.
It’s fair to chide Nash for a totally unimaginative and overweight offense, which was apparent and made the Nets easy to defend in the playoffs, but when it comes to the rotation, he didn’t have much of an option. That’s at Sean Marks and the main office. Credit marks for bringing superstars to Brooklyn. But there were clear risks in investing in Irving (and even Harden) and acquiring Simmons. If we’re going to assess blame, the front office bears much of it. And if Nash was an unconventional choice (and perhaps the wrong choice), that’s with Marks, too.
Mannix: That’s fair, maybe I’m not far enough away from Nash’s refusal to play Cam Thomas, like five minutes to cut Durant’s minutes from the high 40s to, you know, the low 40s.
So let’s assume there are no substantial changes. Where do you put Brooklyn next season? I don’t see how you can put them ahead of Milwaukee and Boston. Miami should still be really good. The Sixers, if Harden plays well, they will be a threat. I would say there are between 3 and 5 seeds next year. But I’ll add this: Brooklyn probably has the highest lead of any of the teams I mentioned. And there should be some urgency. Durant will be 34 years old with many kilometers on top. Irving, Simmons, Harris are all at their best. There may still be a 2-3 year window for the Nets, but next year is almost the year that have to win.
Stream: We just saw a season in which the top four teams in the East finished inside two games each other. There is incredible parity at the top level. Every little mishap can reshuffle the deck. Sure, the Nets have their warnings and concerns, but so do the Bucks, Celtics, Heat and Sixers. At full strength, the Nets It should be as good as any of them.
More NBA coverage:
Reference-www.si.com