This past July, when Paul Pierce signed a two-year, $11 million deal to play for the Washington Wizards after just one season in Brooklyn with the Nets, it’s fair to say many in the NBA community were took by surprise. After a relatively successful postseason, in which Pierce saved the Nets’ series against the Raptors with a game- and series-winning block on Kyle Lowry in Game 7, Pierce was gone, leaving his longtime teammate and friend Kevin Garnett in Brooklyn.
Eventually, after the initial shock of the move subsided, it became known that the Nets simply passed on re-signing Pierce, electing to go with a series of younger options rather than pay $6 million or so for the aging veteran. Pierce averaged 13.5 points on 45 percent shooting in the 2013-14 season in Brooklyn but shone in the playoffs, hitting a dagger from the top-of-the-key in Game 1 and of course rejecting Lowry, who could have beaten the Nets had he made his desperation floater.
Considering the Nets owned Pierce’s Bird Rights and were very far over the luxury tax threshold anyway, it seemed to be a confusing move by general manager Billy King to not retain Pierce’s services, especially with how many assets he sent to the Celtics in exchange for Pierce, Garnett and Jason Terry the summer before. Of course, the decision invited speculation.
As we now know, the Nets traded Garnett halfway through the 2014-15 campaign and slogged their way to an 8th-place finish in the weak Eastern Conference before falling to the No. 1 Hawks in six games in the first round. Meanwhile, Pierce’s Wizards finished at 46-36, were the No.5 seed, and swept the Raptors before also losing to Atlanta in six games.
In 73 regular season games with Washington, Pierce averaged a career-low 26.2 minutes and scored a tick under 12 points per game, clearly showing signs of physical decay. However, like with the Nets, he stepped up in a big way in the postseason, boasting a stunning .485/.524/.850 slashline to go with nearly 14 points per. Yep, he actually shot over 52 percent from three (33-63) in 10 playoff games. At the age of 36. Pretty remarkable.
Now, with news breaking yesterday that he is likely to opt out of his Washington contract to sign with his hometown Clippers in what will probably be his last NBA season, it’s a good time to revisit the Nets’ decision to not bring Pierce back, even on a short-term deal.
Honestly, it seems unlikely that if the 2014-15 Nets had a healthy Pierce for 70-75 games, it would have made a huge difference in their season. Maybe Brooklyn would have been the No. 6 seed, or even the No. 5 if you’re being a little optimistic, which would have matched them up with the Bulls in the first round.
The Nets would have had a chance against Chicago, certainly a better one than they had against the Hawks, but would they–with Pierce and nothing else changed–really have won? Probably not, considering how poorly they’re suited to defend Derrick Rose and Jimmy Butler specifically, but also the two-pronged interior attack of Pau Gasol and Joakim Noah. But, let’s say Pierce pushes them over the end and the Nets advance.
They would have taken on the Cleveland Cavaliers in the next round. Even if Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving were still hurt, Brooklyn would have had next to no chance to move onto the Eastern Conference Finals–thanks, LeBron–so our little hypothetical experiment should end there. Pierce or no Pierce, the Nets weren’t going very far in the playoffs anyway.
So, should they have re-signed The Truth, or let him walk as they did? Personally, I would have signed him for a one-year deal to see if the continuity from the year before–plus a healthy Brook Lopez, who missed all of the 2013-14 postseason–could spark success for an entire season. However, I can’t fault Nets management for how it handled the matter.
They valued Pierce as less than the $6-7 million he would have cost for them to bring him back, and it’s hard to argue he was worth much more. Sure, Brooklyn didn’t end up being very good and obviously didn’t maximize the money not spent on Pierce, but now the Nets are on the verge of breaking out of the luxury penalty and can finally smell some cap space in the next few offseasons.
Had they kept Pierce, and maybe won another playoff round, it’s possible the inevitable rebuild would be delayed by a season or two. With the new CBA a year away, and multiple high-level free agents bound to hit the market, that could have been a death knell for Brooklyn. Remember, there’s always the chance Kevin Durant decides to spurn Oklahoma City for the bright lights of Brooklyn–not Manhattan, of course. Imagine if the Nets turned that possibility down for another year of Pierce? That would be the real disaster.
My verdict: No, the Nets should not have re-signed Pierce. Hey, they got something right for once, at least in my book. Thankfully, for Brooklyn, Pierce is clearly on the decline but there’s no doubt he would have made the 2014-15 Nets a better team. But in the end, is that marginal improvement worth it. Probably not.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
