clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Do Brooklyn Nets need a quick start? In a word, yes.

New, comments
Debby Wong-USA TODAY Sports

In 2007, the Celtics, with Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen started out 20-2, conjuring up dreams of the Michael Jordan-era Bulls. Could they surpass the Bull's 72 win mark? The rest of the way, they went 46-14. Not bad but they fell six games short of the Bulls' record. They did win it all their first year together.

in 2010, the Heat, with their Big Three, started out 9-8, leading to suggestions that LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh couldn't play together. Then, they ran off 12 straight wins. They got to the Finals where they lost to the Mavs, then won the last two championships.

In 2013, the Lakers, with a starting lineup filled with prospective Hall of Famers and a bench filled with marginal NBA players, were picked as surefire champ. They finally got over .500 on March 8, when they got to 32-31. They got bounced in the first round.

So no outcome is guaranteed by the expenditure of money or the accumulation of superstars

How important will it be for the Nets, with their $187 million roster, to start quickly, to get that chemistry right? Marcus Henry of the Amsterdam News thinks it's critical. Beyond the NBA, he cites teams in football and baseball, one right at home, that haven't mastered enough chemistry to meet expectations.

"Our lovable Bronx Bombers have spent a couple billions of dollars on players’ salaries in the last decade and have just one World Series championship to show for it."

The Nets do have an advantage in that Pierce and Garnett have done this before ... and well. But as Henry points out, it could all turn out badly.

"We’ve seen teams in all sports spend money and load up in the offseason only to fall flat on their faces. Just ask the 2011 Philadelphia Eagles. They added a ton of salaries and missed the playoffs."

A cautionary tale, no doubt.