I really hate talking in an "If only" tone.. after all, the past is the past. In light of the lockout however, and the limited opportunity to talk about productive things.. I'm going to ask a question with regards to the Deron Williams trade, just because I can't go too long without talking Nets ball :)
I've been of the opinion that a season long lockout favors the Nets. Firstly, because of the likely possibility that we get a high pick in a great draft, and secondly, because we won't have to make the crucial decision of whether to spend our cap space in a desperate attempt to keep Deron Williams, or to hold tight for Dwight Howard. I honestly think that a team with Deron, Lopez, and Barnes/McDoo/etc. would be front runners for Dwight.
That said... in a scenario where we do end up losing the entire 2011-2012 season, we will have effectively traded Favors, Devin, Kanter, the Warriors pick, and 3 million in cash for a handful of meaningless games with Deron Williams. Since he'll likely become a free agent in 2012, we could have theoretically gotten him for free.
So here is the question.. in the event that we do have a season long lockout, come back in 2012 with Dwight and Deron on the team, will that trade be viewed as a bad one? Considering we could have traded Devin Harris for a couple of draft picks, retained Derrick Favors and our 2 picks, and still had cap space for the superstars? Or would you say that the Nets never would have been in the conversation for Dwight Howard had we not pulled the trigger on the Deron Williams trade in the first place?
Could the Nets have lured Deron Williams and Dwight Howard as a free agents in the 2012 summer if there was a season long lockout?
Of course, who wouldn't want to play with a young and promising team in Brooklyn? (71 votes)
Maybe Deron Williams, but not Dwight Howard (22 votes)
Maybe Dwight Howard, but not Deron Williams (14 votes)
No way, we would have ended up with another $35 million zombie (152 votes)
259 total votes