5 Worst Trades in Nets Franchise History

Posted on: February 21st, 2013 by William Rausch Comments

Not every day was rosy for Billy King & Rod Thorn. (AP)

Earlier today on this trade deadline day, the holiest of trade days, we took a look back at the good: reminiscing about the five best trades the Nets franchise ever orchestrated, both in and for New Jersey and Brooklyn. But of course, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and as a result, we've got to look at the other side too.

Here are the five worst trades in Nets history, starting in 2002. Buckle up.

Start Here: #5 (2002)

Comments

  1. avatar WynnDuffy says:

    The Deke for KVH trade was a great trade.

    Got rid of the classic choker ‘Pee-Wee’ Van Horn (addition by subtraction), and the way Deke was used by Scott exposed Byron as the idiot he was.

    1. avatar Mark Ginocchio says:

      Except Mutombo was terrible with the Nets, wasn’t even a league average player after he left the Nets, and they were paying him more than $15 million a year to play for the Knicks and Rockets. With that said, I’d probably put RJ for Yi/Simmons ahead of it and also Coleman for Bradley.

      1. RJ for Yi/Simmons is a good call. As for Coleman, too bloated (as a person and contract) and a locker room cancer. Granted, he could still play despite all this.

        And though this isn’t fair because you could do it with any number of trades, Bradley helped get Cassell (who was productive in his own right), who helped get Marbury, who helped get Kidd.

        1. avatar WynnDuffy says:

          Except that the 2 Yi/Simmons years are probably the two bleakest years in Nets NBA history.

      2. avatar WynnDuffy says:

        Yes, that’s the point. nets paid Deke 15 mil to play for other team, while Nets were still in need of a Center.

        Deke was responsible for the only two Nets NBA Finals games the Nets won in their NBA History.

        Byron Scott was an idiot.

  2. avatar Jon C says:

    The Blaylock trade piece is some great bit of Nets history. Nicely done. Mookie was a heck of a player.

    I have to disagree with the Crash trade though as being bad. It is completely unfair to assume that the Nets would have drafted Lillard, especially if as you say they were not high on him. That said, I’d guess the Nets would have taken Harrison Barnes. And Barnes is playing much better than I thought he would.

    Still Crash is a good SF and PF. Is he expensive? Yes, but unrestricted free agents who are proven are expensive. You want a chance at a bargain, go sign someone who hasn’t ever started. Crash is totally worth the $10 million this year, there is no reason to think he won’t be worth it next year, and his final year he will be a moveable expiring contract. Really there is only one year of risk here in this contract, that third year. That can’t be a top five worst trade.

    1. avatar WynnDuffy says:

      It’s a bad trade because Nets could have had a better draft pick (possibly #1) AND Crash.

  3. avatar KnickHater says:

    I’ll never forgive the Knicks for what they did to our team. We’ll never know how good we could have been if the Knicks hadn’t forced us to give up Dr. J.

  4. avatar rash says:

    your way off on the gerald wallace trade. No wallace no deron. no deron no joe. You must like seeing the same 22 win nets team or something. This is the first winning season the nets have had in years and wallace is a big part of that. Even if you got Damian Lillard, he’s not starting over the franchise. Worst trade was RJ for Yi…horrible

    1. avatar WynnDuffy says:

      Nets could have still signed Crash. Deron wasn’t going anywhere and giving up money.

  5. avatar Omar Nunez says:

    Mr. Rausch, in your 2 articles, (Best & Worst 5 trades) you have 2 trades in which I believe your thinking is flawed. How can the trade for Williams be a good trade, while the trade for Wallace is a bad one? There are 2 main reason why this is incorrect:

    #1 Money & Credibility. We agree that if the Nets don’t make the trade for Wallace (and subsequently Johnson), then Williams doesn’t resign. If Williams and all these veterans aren’t on the Nets today (yes), they probably have Lillard, but who else was coming to Brooklyn to sign because of him.

    Answer…No one. Which means the Nets’ squad today would’ve consisted of Lopez, Lillard, and Marshon Brooks. Nice young team, but they would have no one with the required leadership and skills to win 33 games so far. Also not a team that Prokhorov dare enter the new $1 billion Barclay Center to introduce to new Nets’ fan base, which in turn meant no fan investment and subsequent loss of revenue ($).

    #2 To validate the original Williams’ trade. Again, we are in agreement that without a sign of good faith (trading for Wallace) from Billy King, he doesn’t convince Williams to resign, correct? So, if they don’t make the Wallace trade and Williams leaves, what just happened to the Williams’ trade which you had as one of the best the Nets ever had? Oh, they give up essentially three #1 draft picks (Favors & two #1’s) and Devin Harris for 1 1/2 yrs of Williams. Seems to me that the Wallace trade was extremely necessary in order to protect the original investment.

    The Wallace trade can ONLY be deemed bad if the “Deron Williams Era” isn’t successful, which we will not know until about 3 yrs down the road. These trades are forever connected (along with Joe Johnson) and can’t be viewed singly or in a vacuum.

    1. avatar WynnDuffy says:

      Again, Nets could have signed Crash as a FA. Nobody was going to offer GW what the Nets offered him.

      1. avatar Omar Nunez says:

        The Nets were in a unique position where they were being held ransom by William’s free agency. You can’t compare Orlando because Howard never really wanted to stay and more importantly, the Magic were never in a position to actually get better while the Nets sure could (cap space).

        For the Nets, it was either bring in talent right away, or watch me (Williams) walk away. Considering what they gave up to get him, King had to pull the trigger ASAP to show Williams he meant business in trying to make this team better. Waiting until off-season free agency didn’t guarantee getting Wallace because on top of the fact that they were bad, without already being on the team, he wouldn’t had felt any type of loyalty or comraderie to sway his decision.

        Unfortunately, because it was made so late in the season and the fact the Nets were probably the most injured team in the league, the move didn’t make an impact in the win/loss record. But, really the trade was made for this year and it is paying off with 33 wins so far.

        Even if they resign Williams, sign Wallace (instead of trading), and keep last year’s 1st rd pick, I HIGHLY doubt the player selected (today) is an integrel part of this team or even breaks the starting lineup.

        They’re not picking Lillard with Williams as the “face of the franchise”, there not picking a better SF, SG or C with Wallace, Johnson, and Lopez already in place, and tell me a rookie PF that would be starting on this team (today) over Evans or Humphries?

        I just think the trade in itself can not be judged without taking into account the place in history the franchise was in and how it fit in with everything else. Williams was the linchpin of this whole new Brooklyn identity, and he and King wanted to create a win now situation and no rookie picked at #6 was going to help that along.

        1. avatar WynnDuffy says:

          A) Deron was going nowhere. After a season and a half of subpar injured play, he was not going to leave money on the table.

          B) If we don’t trade for Wallace, we lose a few more games last season, and might have actually wound up with the #1 pick.

          1. avatar Omar Nunez says:

            So let me get this straight, King should have not traded for Wallace because (A) you know for a fact that Williams would resign since all he cared about was money? If this is true then why didn’t you stop King from making the Joe Johnson trade, forcing the Nets to overpay him at $19+ mil per year for the next 4 years? That financialy ridiculous trade was also made to convince Williams to stay. If King knew for sure Deron was staying anyway, he doesn’t make that trade, so please act like you knew. If you remember, Deron didn’t resign until after Wallace was resigned and Johnson was dealt for.

          2. avatar Omar Nunez says:

            (B) Also, how can you crtitcize the Wallace trade by saying that it made them a better team? So King was supposed to keep this team bad with the EXPEXTATION of getting the #1 pick, are you kidding me. The Bobcats were the worst team in the league last year and they didn’t get the 1st pick because there’s this thing called the Draft Lottery. Bottom line, there was no realistic shot at getting the #1 pick and outside of Anthony Davis, there is no one in this year’s rookie class that would be starting on this Nets’ roster right now. The Nets don’t need rookies right now.

  6. avatar algwiz says:

    bernard king to new orleans in 1979 for rich kelly was worse net trade ever

  7. avatar FreeAgentID says:

    I agree with five. I think it should be one. We need Anderson at PF. I disagree with five. It was a good trade. It just did not work out.