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 ?