Should the Nets Commit to Kyrie Irving?

What kind of contract should the Nets offer Kyrie Irving? Can they still win it all?

The Nets were swept out of the first round by the Celtics. Now they face major offseason questions surrounding Kyrie Irving, Ben Simmons and Steve Nash. Chris Mannix and Howard Beck weigh in on Brooklyn's future.

Mannix: OK, Beck, three years into the Kevin Durant/Kyrie Irving Era in Brooklyn and the Nets have one playoff series win to show for it. This is an important offseason for several reasons, so let’s unpack them. Start with Kyrie Irving, who could become a free agent this summer: What kind of contract—if any—should Brooklyn offer him?

Beck: Honestly, the Nets should get out of the Kyrie business entirely. As talented as he is, he’s easily the most frustrating and unreliable star in the league (followed closely by his teammate Ben Simmons). Irving has played in just 103 games for the Nets over three seasons, missing the other 123 because of injuries, his vaccine refusal and a mysterious two-week break a year ago. This isn’t a guy you want to invest $35 million a year in. And yet … he’s Kevin Durant’s buddy, and KD wants him there.

So here’s my stance if I’m the Nets: If Kyrie opts out and becomes a free agent, I’m letting others set the market – because there won’t be much of a market. Teams aren’t clamoring to sign him. Then I’m offering him a short-term deal—two years or a one-plus-one—with games-played incentives, and possibly below the full max. Under no circumstances should they give him a full five-year deal (as a free agent) or a four-year extension (if he opts in). You can’t let him walk for nothing. But you also can’t overcommit. Agree?

Mannix: In theory … yes. There are countless reasons not to commit to Kyrie. You just articulated them well. But you glossed over the salient point. You say teams aren’t clamoring to sign him. I say it only takes one and that team could be out there. And what happens if Kyrie is offered a four-year max? What do you do then?

Beck: Yes, the well-worn NBA axiom is, “It only takes one”—and maybe some team is willing to take that leap. But based on my cursory discussions with people around the league, I really don’t think anyone’s offering Kyrie a four-year max at this stage. If someone does, you probably have to match it. But the goal has to be fewer years and below-max money. In any case, Kyrie is almost certainly back, which raises the next question: Can you afford to have two mercurial co-stars next to Durant? Are you sure Ben Simmons is the right third star? Do you keep him, or flip him?

Mannix: I don’t think it’s a keep him or flip him with Simmons, whose market is drier than Kyrie’s. The three years and $100-plus million left on his contract make Simmons tough to trade under ideal circumstances, and these ain’t ideal. It’s pretty clear, based on reports, the Nets feel like Simmons quit on them, or at least did not give maximum effort to return. What kind of value would teams swap for him now? And let’s not forget—Brooklyn gave up James Harden to get him!

Beck: I think we agree, the most likely scenario is the Nets open camp with Durant, Irving and Simmons as their core. Assuming everyone’s healthy, engaged and eligible for 82 games, that’s pretty damn good! The Nets should be a contender on that basis alone, as long as no one wanders off in the middle of the season. With a healthy Joe Harris and Seth Curry (who also came over in that Harden deal), the Nets will have two elite shooters to go with their three stars. So is it enough? And is Steve Nash still the right coach for this group? What else, if anything, should the Nets do to get back in the mix with Boston, Milwaukee, Miami and Philadelphia in this suddenly crowded top tier of the East?

Mannix: Before we get to Nash—and I have a strong opinion there—I want to be clear that despite all the potential drama there is a championship team in Brooklyn. Think about it: KD is still KD, Kyrie, with a full season, is as good as it gets as a second star and Simmons, without the pressure of having to be a top guy and with a collection of shooters around him (Harris, Curry) is going to be a big-time weapon as a playmaker and defender. That’s as enviable a roster as it gets.

OK, Nash: I think you have to move on. I understand he had a lot to deal with this season. But the playoffs exposed him as a limited in-game coach, in my opinion. And coaching, especially in the postseason, matters (sorry, Shaq). Nash vs. Ime Udoka was like Trevor Berbick vs. Mike Tyson. It wasn’t close. Nash was an unconventional hire to begin with. He had not been a full-time coach at any level and didn’t seem to aspire to be. I’m not saying every coach has to be a zealot like Tom Thibodeau, but I think you need to have more of a passion for it. It’s hindsight but the Nets had Udoka on Nash’s staff last season. They had to see how good he was. Where would this team be if Udoka had been the head coach? Might still be playing. Brooklyn needs to make a change. Thoughts?

Beck: Nash hasn’t been great, but I don’t think his coaching was even in the top 10 of Things That Sunk the Nets this season. Their roster was too guard-heavy, too old in the frontcourt (hello, LaMarcus Aldridge and Blake Griffin) and generally lacking reliable postseason performers. They surrendered their best role players in the first Harden deal with the Rockets, then swapped Harden for a $35 million enigma who never played a minute. It’s not Nash’s fault that Harden showed up out of shape and then soured on the situation when Irving couldn’t play. And it’s not Nash’s fault that Irving opted to miss two-thirds of the season.

It’s fair to chide Nash for a wholly unimaginative, iso-heavy offense—that was glaring, and made the Nets easy to defend in the playoffs—but when it comes to the rotation, he didn’t have any great options. That’s on Sean Marks and the front office. Credit Marks for getting superstars to Brooklyn. But there were clear risks in investing in Irving (and even Harden), and in acquiring Simmons. If we’re going to assess blame, the front office bears a lot of it. And if Nash was an unconventional choice (and perhaps the wrong choice), that’s on Marks, too.

Mannix: That’s fair—maybe I’m not far enough removed from Nash’s refusal to play Cam Thomas, like, five minutes to whittle Durant’s minutes from the high 40s to, you know, the low 40s.

So let’s assume no substantive changes. Where do you slot Brooklyn next season? I don’t see how you can put them ahead of Milwaukee and Boston. Miami should still be really good. The Sixers, if Harden plays well, will be a threat. I’d say they are anywhere from a 3-5 seed next year. But I’ll add this: Brooklyn probably has the highest upside of any of the teams I mentioned. And there should be some urgency. Durant will be 34 with a lot of miles on him. Irving, Simmons, Harris are all in their prime. There still may be a 2-3 year window for the Nets but next year is almost the year they have to win.

Beck: We just saw a season where the top four teams in the East finished within two games of each other. There’s incredible parity in the top tier. Every little hiccup can reshuffle the deck. Sure, the Nets have their caveats and concerns, but so do the Bucks, Celtics, Heat and Sixers. At full strength, the Nets should be as good as any of them.