Kris Humphries, Brooklyn Nets Reportedly Agree to 2-Year, $24 Million Deal
As they continue to gear up for their move from New Jersey to Brooklyn, they've decided to take the controversial power forward with them, signing the free agent to a brand new deal on Tuesday.
ESPN.com's Marc Stein tweeted the news:
Just going up online and via SportsCenter: Kris Humprhies is staying with Nets on two-year deal valued at $24 million— Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) July 17, 2012
It was long expected that the Nets would re-sign Humphries, even though it didn't happen as soon as the free-agency clock began ticking. The forward is coming off the best season of his career, in which he registered 13.8 points and 11.0 rebounds in about 35 minutes per game.
Though his career averages are far less impressive—6.7 points, 5.5 rebounds per game—the 27-year-old has been steadily improving over the last three seasons with the Nets.
Now, a Nets squad that has already re-signed Deron Williams, Brook Lopez and Gerald Wallace, while trading for Atlanta's Joe Johnson, looks even stronger up front.
What It Means
The Nets obviously aren't too concerned with Humphries' ever-growing public profile. Ever since marrying and then divorcing Kim Kardashian, the forward has been a gossip-rag fixture, most recently making headlines because of the drama surrounding his ex-girlfriend's supposed pregnancy.
Last year's commotion didn't impact Humphries' play on the court, judging by his impressive stat line. Hopefully, the same holds true for the next two years, given that the Nets just committed $24 million to him.
What Comes Next
We'll all wait and see if the Nets have retooled enough to make a serious run at a playoff berth in 2012-13.
There's no time like the present for an upgrade, as this team looks to complete its high-profile move from New Jersey to Brooklyn. Humphries' new deal is another sign that this team is serious about bringing in the necessary pieces and spending the cash to become a contender.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?