Since Nets Owner Mikhail Prokhorov bought the team more than five years ago, the combination of the "desire to win a championship and the impulse to impress with bold moves and star power have come to define what has been Prokhorov’s chaotic and tumultuous reign atop the franchise," according to Tim Bontemps of the WASHINGTON POST. When Prokhorov first arrived he was a "mysterious and foreboding presence to the rest of the NBA." There was a sense at league HQ and among the 29 other franchises that Prokhorov "would be willing to spend whatever it would take to win and that players would be attracted by the lavish lifestyle he leads." Many thought that he could "have a similar impact" to that of Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban. But from the league’s perspective, the "biggest draw ... was the fact that Prokhorov was willing to buy a team." Buying an NBA team then was "far less of a sure thing." Prokhorov for most of his tenure "has been a largely absentee owner." He "drops in for the occasional game here and there, but for the most part, he stays away." As Prokhorov’s other interests "often kept him elsewhere, the day-to-day operations of the team were largely handled by his right-hand man," Nets Chair Dmitry Razumov. The Nets have cut back on payroll "in a big way over the past 18 months." It was a "smart business decision," but buying out star players "wasn’t the kind of move a title-seeking team backed by Prokhorov’s billions was supposed to make" (WASHINGTON POST, 1/14).
SAME AS IT EVER WAS: VICE SPORTS' Mike Vorkunov wrote under the header, "The Brooklyn Nets Are Still The Nets." After a half-decade of "stilted moves, haphazard trades and bungled team-building, the Nets are still trying to gain their foothold" in N.Y. The Knicks "don't necessarily have an iron-fisted grasp on the zeitgeist, but the Nets continue to be a rudderless mess." In "trying to own New York, to bring pizzazz to Brooklyn, to rebrand themselves from the tirelessly sadsack tenants of East Rutherford to the hip new neighbors over the Manhattan Bridge," the Nets "seemed more artifice than authentic." They also "chose pedigree over promise and forewent the future." In "trying to beat the Knicks, they became, well, the Knicks" (SPORTS.VICE.com, 1/13).
