^ I'm honestly not sure if they are that badly overpaid.
Sometimes overpaying is good, too.
Joe Johnson is what helped the Nets secure D-Will
He also fits great on their team, and name better/more reliable 2-guards in the NBA?
Maybe 2, 3 others you could definitely say are better?
Sure, if the Bobcats signed JJ to that deal....it's horrible. As it would be for many (most) teams in the NBA.
But for the Nets?
Idk how Humphries is overpaid either -- he's an efficient scoring, double double machine. He also outperformed STAT last year.
Not saying he is great, or even better than STAT (though I wouldn't be shocked if he puts up comparable PER), but he is also paid much less than STAT.....
Look at the deals that bigs get in the NBA (especially double-double guys), not to mention ones who are young (like Humphries) -- they get paid, and they often get overpaid into huge deals. Humphries got a 2yr deal that somehow was low enough to fit into the Nets' budget.
The only player the Nets will sink or swim on, and really overpaid for (at this time) is Lopez. Lopezs' game will decide whether the Nets are pretenders (worse than us), fringe contenders, or legit contenders.
If Lopez plays like the Lopez of last year, they are fringe contenders. If the still young, talented Center gets better, they can be legit contenders in a time of the NBA where *legit* contenders are very rare.
Dwill
JJ
Wallace
Humphries
Lopez
Find me starting 5's in the NBA better than that, with more bottomline potential.
There's not many.
Most important for the Nets, which makes their gambles good and their "overpaid" contracts not that bad, is that they possess potential. Particularly in Lopez (and to a lesser extent in JJ and Humphries) to be significantly better than they currently look on paper.
I would also give them an additional X-Factor of potential, which is the overall fit and cohesion of their roster; which, on paper, bodes as a potential positive.
I don't see how NYK don't have more question marks, and bigger question marks; which is why I see the Nets as a much safer bet.
The Nets have yet to perform horribly and poorly from a chemistry standpoint, either; we have. They also have less injury concerns.
The Nets haven't proved ****, but that's still better than having put out **** in the first place.
Nets are ****y pricks. But Knick fans are being an *extremely* hopeful and optimistic bunch here.
Sometimes overpaying is good, too.
Joe Johnson is what helped the Nets secure D-Will
He also fits great on their team, and name better/more reliable 2-guards in the NBA?
Maybe 2, 3 others you could definitely say are better?
Sure, if the Bobcats signed JJ to that deal....it's horrible. As it would be for many (most) teams in the NBA.
But for the Nets?
Idk how Humphries is overpaid either -- he's an efficient scoring, double double machine. He also outperformed STAT last year.
Not saying he is great, or even better than STAT (though I wouldn't be shocked if he puts up comparable PER), but he is also paid much less than STAT.....
Look at the deals that bigs get in the NBA (especially double-double guys), not to mention ones who are young (like Humphries) -- they get paid, and they often get overpaid into huge deals. Humphries got a 2yr deal that somehow was low enough to fit into the Nets' budget.
The only player the Nets will sink or swim on, and really overpaid for (at this time) is Lopez. Lopezs' game will decide whether the Nets are pretenders (worse than us), fringe contenders, or legit contenders.
If Lopez plays like the Lopez of last year, they are fringe contenders. If the still young, talented Center gets better, they can be legit contenders in a time of the NBA where *legit* contenders are very rare.
Dwill
JJ
Wallace
Humphries
Lopez
Find me starting 5's in the NBA better than that, with more bottomline potential.
There's not many.
Most important for the Nets, which makes their gambles good and their "overpaid" contracts not that bad, is that they possess potential. Particularly in Lopez (and to a lesser extent in JJ and Humphries) to be significantly better than they currently look on paper.
I would also give them an additional X-Factor of potential, which is the overall fit and cohesion of their roster; which, on paper, bodes as a potential positive.
I don't see how NYK don't have more question marks, and bigger question marks; which is why I see the Nets as a much safer bet.
The Nets have yet to perform horribly and poorly from a chemistry standpoint, either; we have. They also have less injury concerns.
The Nets haven't proved ****, but that's still better than having put out **** in the first place.
Nets are ****y pricks. But Knick fans are being an *extremely* hopeful and optimistic bunch here.