CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: rondohondo on May 14, 2013, 09:08:33 AM
-
The Jeff Green for Perk deal looks like a complete steal for Boston at this point . Because of adding Perk's salary , they were then unable to resign Harden , so had to trade him .
If they Kept Green for Perk's salary , they would have at least had a 3rd option on offense to go with Durant and Westbrook .
They then could have traded Harden for a big man like Al Jefferson or Cousins or someone .
They could have even packaged green and Harden for Dwight Howard , or another legit big man .
He really screwed OKC's chances at winnig a title IMO . He may even chase Durant out of town if he can't put together a championship team in the next few years .
-
When Westbrook got injured.
The trade improved the team.
-
building and running a team are two different skillsets
maybe he was just better at building from scratch than he was at keeping the momentum going as those guys matured
he's still got some bullets to fire though - that Harden trade was a lot more about the pick he got than the player (Martin) he got initially
he is probably preparing to load up via the draft (cheap labor) to add around Durant/Westbrook and he can't do that effectively picking at the end of the first round
-
They would have had to eventially pay Green as well as Harden. Who knows if they progress the way they did without the change of culture that Perkins brought. The only thing that I think Presti messed up with was not pursuing Howard. They could've packaged Harden & Ibaka for Howard, no way Orlando says no to that.
-
He could have gotten a lot more for Harden, and Perk just isn't helping them there. Great at drafting, terrible at trading and keeping assets. They absolutely should have kept Harden, amnestied Perk.
-
Presti is probably the best GM in the league. He built the Supersonics of what 4 or 5 years ago into NBA finals contenders. How can you say a team that went to the finals last year got screwed up because of the Jeff Green trade? It put them over the top.
And they would be back in the finals again this year if Westbrook hadnt gotten injured.
-
They were going to lose Green anyways in FA, so getting a big man who you did want to pay was a win for him.
I can't even blame him for the Perkins contract, he couldn't have known or planned for how the new CBA would impact how salary limited he'd be. Remember they could have amnestied Perkins to eliminate that constraint, its not Perkins salary that matters. Its Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka that made them decline to pay Harden.
He chose Ibaka over Harden and then chose to trade Harden during the offseason instead of rolling the dice forward to try and win this year. Those are the two things that jump out to me.
-
Harden was a complete no-show in the finals against Miami.
That probably led to the lopsided trade with Houston...so probably it was the wrong
time to trade Harden given his terrible finals.
-
Harden was a complete no-show in the finals against Miami.
That probably led to the lopsided trade with Houston...so probably it was the wrong
time to trade Harden given his terrible finals.
I don't think the Finals cost Harden any of his value. Not after he'd destroyed the Spurs.
Remember he had a bad shooting Finals while being guarded by LeBron and having to guard him on the other end for long stretches. (which was an awful thing of Brooks to ask of him)
I actually think his playmaking and other areas of his game were really good in the Finals. Just couldn't make shots, even when he was getting to the rim or taking good ones.
-
They were going to lose Green anyways in FA, so getting a big man who you did want to pay was a win for him.
I can't even blame him for the Perkins contract, he couldn't have known or planned for how the new CBA would impact how salary limited he'd be. Remember they could have amnestied Perkins to eliminate that constraint, its not Perkins salary that matters. Its Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka that made them decline to pay Harden.
He chose Ibaka over Harden and then chose to trade Harden during the offseason instead of rolling the dice forward to try and win this year. Those are the two things that jump out to me.
Imagine if he'd offered Ibaka for Larry Sanders or Andre Drummond.
That Ibaka contract was Presti's mistake. Perkins he could've amnestied, but Ibaka's 12.4 next year and going forward fundamentally eliminated the ability to keep Harden long-term and field a team.
Now if the perception of Ibaka changes from a player you build around to a piece that's nice to have but very expensive (to borrow from Bill Simmons, 'a luxury'), they're going to just end up riding out his deal.
But he's only 24, so he's still got room to grow. Maybe Presti's gamble will pan out.
-
Personally, I felt that the error with OKC's team was that they should have trade westbrook for a high tier pass first point guard, and kept Harden. That is how I felt last year.
When CP3 was being shopped for a new home two summers ago, I had thought for sure that OKC would be interested in a deal.
And then last summer I had thought that they would find a point guard who did not shoot more than your teams leading scorer. But they shipped Harden over Westbrook.
I am not a Westbrook fan. I think that he is Gilbert Arenas but with an amazingly talented teammate.
-
But he's only 24, so he's still got room to grow. Maybe Presti's gamble will pan out.
Far too early to think Ibaka can't fulfill his potential.
-
Trading Harden was an absolutely TERRIBLE move from every possible perspective. The only argument for trading him was financial - but they still could have kept him this season and dealt with it in the off-season.
That trade was an absolute steal by the Rockets, and a major blunder by Presti that potentially closed this team's window (depending on how Ibaka develops).
That said, Presti still gets enormous credit for building a team that won the West and went to the FInals last year. He needs to make up for the Harden blunder somehow, though.
Honestly, the biggest problem with OKC is Scott Brooks. He is just flat out not a good coach, and Westbrook's absence has really highlighted how one-dimensional his game planning and play-calling are.
-
Don't see alot terrible. Hindsight is 20-20 ......you can what if all day......which is pointless
With Harden gone, Martin is not capable of filling his shoes and West brook injured , OKC isn't going to win it all.
I don't like Westbrook but , I'm convinced they can't or won't win without him.
Perk, seems useless out there , and lost.
OKC at the moment can't carry the the Heats water bucket.
-
Honestly, the biggest problem with OKC is Scott Brooks. He is just flat out not a good coach, and Westbrook's absence has really highlighted how one-dimensional his game planning and play-calling are.
I don't know why Kevin Martin is still coming off the bench with Westbrook out and playing against a Memphis team that is fairly limited offensively on the wing with Tony Allen and Tayshaun Prince. The team needs more offense. Put your second best offensive player in the starting lineup already.
Makes no sense to me.
I think Nick Collison should be playing a lot more also. A really good high post passer. With the PG gone and with offensive options limited, a reliable high post passing big man is valuable. It's not like he is a dodgy defender and it is not like Perkins is setting the world on fire with his performances. I don't get it. Why play N.Collison only 18mpg? Give him closer to 30mpg.
-
People seem to forget that while Harden and Westbrook were lottery picks they were by no means 'sure things.' A LOT of people really doubted the picks at the time.
You can play Monday quarterback on the Perkins trade, but people forget that moving Green freed up playing time for both Harden and Ibaka. Presti also refused to give up Harden in the trade.
As who said, Scott Brooks is the problem. Russell Westrbook getting injured will be the best thing that ever happened to the team, b/c it's exposed his limited offensive sets and stubbornness. Can him, hire Brian Shaw, watch the championships pile up.
-
When healthy, they're the 2nd best team in the league. He's got 2 draft picks this year,a $12 million expiring player, and still holds his amnesty card (Perk?). Plus, his two best players are both signed long term. I think he's doing an excellent job.
-
I think Nick Collison should be playing a lot more also. A really good high post passer. With the PG gone and with offensive options limited, a reliable high post passing big man is valuable. It's not like he is a dodgy defender and it is not like Perkins is setting the world on fire with his performances. I don't get it. Why play N.Collison only 18mpg? Give him closer to 30mpg.
Collison has been a foul machine against Z-Bo and Gasol.
4 fouls in 20 minutes
6 fouls in 15 minutes
5 fouls in 14 minutes
6 fouls in 20 minutes
Collison can't keep himself on the floor.
-
I'm not in love with Brooks either, but I don't think you can just count on the next coach doing a better job than him.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if in the off season they attempted to deal Perkins and some of their youth/picks for a veteran(s) to put them over the top. I see them as a solid trading partner for KG or Pierce.
I think Presti has done a great job. He has drafted impeccably adding fresh talent to the pipe line every single year. I expect them to get a good rotation player with the pick from Toronto, probably a high upside european (Gobert or Giannis) that they can slowly develop like they did Ibaka.
Presti's biggest mistake is having Brooks as his coach. He was fine while Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden, and KD were growing up but now that they are a legit title contender it's time to reach out to Phil Jackson.
-
I'm not in love with Brooks either, but I don't think you can just count on the next coach doing a better job than him.
The core of that team had been together for years, how much has the offense progressed? Kevin Durant is a gift from the playbook gods and they've had absolutely no development on the offensive side of the ball for years now.
I mean, honestly, think about all the talent they have, and how incompetent they can look as a unit.
-
I'm not in love with Brooks either, but I don't think you can just count on the next coach doing a better job than him.
The core of that team had been together for years, how much has the offense progressed? Kevin Durant is a gift from the playbook gods and they've had absolutely no development on the offensive side of the ball for years now.
I mean, honestly, think about all the talent they have, and how incompetent they can look as a unit.
I think this is a roster issue though. This is the problem when your team is built around multiple ISO players. It can make your offense look bad if they have off nights. If they didn't have Westbrook and Durant together, I have a feeling the offense would look a lot different. But, at this point, it is a little late to dramatically change it.
-
Personally, I felt that the error with OKC's team was that they should have trade westbrook for a high tier pass first point guard, and kept Harden. That is how I felt last year.
When CP3 was being shopped for a new home two summers ago, I had thought for sure that OKC would be interested in a deal.
And then last summer I had thought that they would find a point guard who did not shoot more than your teams leading scorer. But they shipped Harden over Westbrook.
I am not a Westbrook fan. I think that he is Gilbert Arenas but with an amazingly talented teammate.
Rather have westbrook then cp3, no questions asked. Westbrook is just as important to the thunder as Durant...sick of this argument, the thunder need westbrook to be that aggressive to be the contenders they were before he got hurt...blame Durant not shooting enough on him, not Russell
-
I'm not in love with Brooks either, but I don't think you can just count on the next coach doing a better job than him.
The core of that team had been together for years, how much has the offense progressed? Kevin Durant is a gift from the playbook gods and they've had absolutely no development on the offensive side of the ball for years now.
I mean, honestly, think about all the talent they have, and how incompetent they can look as a unit.
The offense has progressed from 12th, 5th, 2nd, and 1st in the league as far as offensive rating.
So much of their ugly offense comes from Westbrooks warts and the fact that they're playing Thabo/Perkins/Fisher as much as they do.
I fully believe another coach could craft a prettier offense, I'm not sure it'd be more effective.
-
I'm not in love with Brooks either, but I don't think you can just count on the next coach doing a better job than him.
The core of that team had been together for years, how much has the offense progressed? Kevin Durant is a gift from the playbook gods and they've had absolutely no development on the offensive side of the ball for years now.
I mean, honestly, think about all the talent they have, and how incompetent they can look as a unit.
I think this is a roster issue though. This is the problem when your team is built around multiple ISO players. It can make your offense look bad if they have off nights. If they didn't have Westbrook and Durant together, I have a feeling the offense would look a lot different. But, at this point, it is a little late to dramatically change it.
And Durant has greatly expanded his playmaking this year.
-
I'm not in love with Brooks either, but I don't think you can just count on the next coach doing a better job than him.
The core of that team had been together for years, how much has the offense progressed? Kevin Durant is a gift from the playbook gods and they've had absolutely no development on the offensive side of the ball for years now.
I mean, honestly, think about all the talent they have, and how incompetent they can look as a unit.
I think this is a roster issue though. This is the problem when your team is built around multiple ISO players. It can make your offense look bad if they have off nights. If they didn't have Westbrook and Durant together, I have a feeling the offense would look a lot different. But, at this point, it is a little late to dramatically change it.
But at some point you have to figure out a way to make it work. You have to figure out a way to teach Durant to move without the ball. Whether that's through teaching, or designed plays.
When's the last time you've seen a back pick set for Durant on a Westbrook iso?
How many times have you seen a 1-4 pick and roll where everybody else on the team just stood still? Why is Ibaka involved so frequently when hes best utilized on the baseline?
-
I'm not in love with Brooks either, but I don't think you can just count on the next coach doing a better job than him.
The core of that team had been together for years, how much has the offense progressed? Kevin Durant is a gift from the playbook gods and they've had absolutely no development on the offensive side of the ball for years now.
I mean, honestly, think about all the talent they have, and how incompetent they can look as a unit.
I think this is a roster issue though. This is the problem when your team is built around multiple ISO players. It can make your offense look bad if they have off nights. If they didn't have Westbrook and Durant together, I have a feeling the offense would look a lot different. But, at this point, it is a little late to dramatically change it.
But at some point you have to figure out a way to make it work. You have to figure out a way to teach Durant to move without the ball. Whether that's through teaching, or designed plays.
When's the last time you've seen a back pick set for Durant on a Westbrook iso?
They run action like that all the time to try and get Durant open on for a curl jumper. A lot of the time they just help off Perkins/Thabo to prevent it or Westbrook just lowers his head to make offense for himself.
-
I'm not in love with Brooks either, but I don't think you can just count on the next coach doing a better job than him.
The core of that team had been together for years, how much has the offense progressed? Kevin Durant is a gift from the playbook gods and they've had absolutely no development on the offensive side of the ball for years now.
I mean, honestly, think about all the talent they have, and how incompetent they can look as a unit.
The offense has progressed from 12th, 5th, 2nd, and 1st in the league as far as offensive rating.
So much of their ugly offense comes from Westbrooks warts and the fact that they're playing Thabo/Perkins/Fisher as much as they do.
I fully believe another coach could craft a prettier offense, I'm not sure it'd be more effective.
I'm rarely the guy who won't just admit he's wrong, but I'm going to continue the fight.
This offense can be slowed down by good defensive teams, and really, it'd be unstoppable if this team ran more offensive sets than my 7th grade B-team.
I think Westbrook's 'warts' plays are the product of this team being really poorly coached, and him having to force the action too frequently. Maybe I'm relying on my eyes too much and being stubborn with data, but I just cant stand to watch the amount of times Russell has the ball in his hand and Durant pulling the old Antoine routine of holding his right hand above his head 5 feet from the 3 point line announcing its 'his turn'
-
As far as why I keep talking about Westbrook, I can kind of forgive him for what the team is doing currently. Just doesn't have the pieces to cut it.
A lot of that is acquiring Martin for Harden (as opposed to a player who is a more capable creator and/or distributor) but it's tough to ride Presti when his resume is SO impressive.
-
I get that you don't like the structure of their offense, but it is still very effective. I still believe that the offense that you dislike is mostly a result of having a scoring PG like Westbrook.
Brooks has tried to reign him in, remember the benching he got in the playoffs? But a coach can only do so much when the guy is a max contract player who plays a certain way. And westbrook is one of the best players in the league playing ugly. Even ugly he's becoming a better assist man etc too....
-
I get that you don't like the structure of their offense, but it is still very effective. I still believe that the offense that you dislike is mostly a result of having a scoring PG like Westbrook.
Brooks has tried to reign him in, remember the benching he got in the playoffs? But a coach can only do so much when the guy is a max contract player who plays a certain way. And westbrook is one of the best players in the league playing ugly. Even ugly he's becoming a better assist man etc too....
I'm a Westbrook guy. I think he's capable of even more than he's shown at his top level. I think Brooks holds him back by giving him absolutely nothing to work with.
-
I get that you don't like the structure of their offense, but it is still very effective. I still believe that the offense that you dislike is mostly a result of having a scoring PG like Westbrook.
Brooks has tried to reign him in, remember the benching he got in the playoffs? But a coach can only do so much when the guy is a max contract player who plays a certain way. And westbrook is one of the best players in the league playing ugly. Even ugly he's becoming a better assist man etc too....
I'm a Westbrook guy. I think he's capable of even more than he's shown at his top level. I think Brooks holds him back by giving him absolutely nothing to work with.
Given how often Westbrook breaks plays and goes nuts I think the only way to get "more" is by taking the ball out of his hands more frequently.
His absence has shown why Brooks doesn't do that.
Man I spent far too long defending Brooks just now, the same Brooks who is playing Fisher constantly in crunch time (AND DID SO LAST YEAR WITH HARDEN ON THE TEAM) *shudder*.
-
Scott Brooks is the biggest problem with the Thunder. He just isn't a good coach. Heck Brooks was the reason the Green trade was made. Had Brooks actually better utilized the roster, Presti never would have made the Perkins trade.
-
I get that you don't like the structure of their offense, but it is still very effective. I still believe that the offense that you dislike is mostly a result of having a scoring PG like Westbrook.
Brooks has tried to reign him in, remember the benching he got in the playoffs? But a coach can only do so much when the guy is a max contract player who plays a certain way. And westbrook is one of the best players in the league playing ugly. Even ugly he's becoming a better assist man etc too....
I'm a Westbrook guy. I think he's capable of even more than he's shown at his top level. I think Brooks holds him back by giving him absolutely nothing to work with.
Given how often Westbrook breaks plays and goes nuts I think the only way to get "more" is by taking the ball out of his hands more frequently.
His absence has shown why Brooks doesn't do that.
Man I spent far too long defending Brooks just now, the same Brooks who is playing Fisher constantly in crunch time (AND DID SO LAST YEAR WITH HARDEN ON THE TEAM) *shudder*.
And ignores every statistical analysis that shows that Kendrick Perkins is even worse than what the eyeball test shows.
-
I get that you don't like the structure of their offense, but it is still very effective. I still believe that the offense that you dislike is mostly a result of having a scoring PG like Westbrook.
Brooks has tried to reign him in, remember the benching he got in the playoffs? But a coach can only do so much when the guy is a max contract player who plays a certain way. And westbrook is one of the best players in the league playing ugly. Even ugly he's becoming a better assist man etc too....
I'm a Westbrook guy. I think he's capable of even more than he's shown at his top level. I think Brooks holds him back by giving him absolutely nothing to work with.
Given how often Westbrook breaks plays and goes nuts I think the only way to get "more" is by taking the ball out of his hands more frequently.
His absence has shown why Brooks doesn't do that.
Man I spent far too long defending Brooks just now, the same Brooks who is playing Fisher constantly in crunch time (AND DID SO LAST YEAR WITH HARDEN ON THE TEAM) *shudder*.
And ignores every statistical analysis that shows that Kendrick Perkins is even worse than what the eyeball test shows.
He cut his playing time down a ton against Houston, but against Memphis he has to play him a lot. Collison is a walking foul and Thabeet is worse.
Can't have Durant banging with Gasol or Randolph for long minutes.
-
Interesting thing about this series--it's completely exposed the differences between LBJ and Durant. We always expected LeBron to carry his team all the way every year when he was in Cleveland. There was always the sense that he could do more.
The talk around KD is the exact opposite--"the kid is playing his ass off, let us lament his lackluster help!"
-
I get that you don't like the structure of their offense, but it is still very effective. I still believe that the offense that you dislike is mostly a result of having a scoring PG like Westbrook.
Brooks has tried to reign him in, remember the benching he got in the playoffs? But a coach can only do so much when the guy is a max contract player who plays a certain way. And westbrook is one of the best players in the league playing ugly. Even ugly he's becoming a better assist man etc too....
I'm a Westbrook guy. I think he's capable of even more than he's shown at his top level. I think Brooks holds him back by giving him absolutely nothing to work with.
Given how often Westbrook breaks plays and goes nuts I think the only way to get "more" is by taking the ball out of his hands more frequently.
His absence has shown why Brooks doesn't do that.
Man I spent far too long defending Brooks just now, the same Brooks who is playing Fisher constantly in crunch time (AND DID SO LAST YEAR WITH HARDEN ON THE TEAM) *shudder*.
And ignores every statistical analysis that shows that Kendrick Perkins is even worse than what the eyeball test shows.
He cut his playing time down a ton against Houston, but against Memphis he has to play him a lot. Collison is a walking foul and Thabeet is worse.
Can't have Durant banging with Gasol or Randolph for long minutes.
Perk is their best big man post defender isn't he??
-
Personally, I felt that the error with OKC's team was that they should have trade westbrook for a high tier pass first point guard, and kept Harden. That is how I felt last year.
When CP3 was being shopped for a new home two summers ago, I had thought for sure that OKC would be interested in a deal.
And then last summer I had thought that they would find a point guard who did not shoot more than your teams leading scorer. But they shipped Harden over Westbrook.
I am not a Westbrook fan. I think that he is Gilbert Arenas but with an amazingly talented teammate.
Gilbert was a much better scorer in his prime than Westbrook right now.
And I say that as a fan of both players.
-
Interesting thing about this series--it's completely exposed the differences between LBJ and Durant. We always expected LeBron to carry his team all the way every year when he was in Cleveland. There was always the sense that he could do more.
The talk around KD is the exact opposite--"the kid is playing his ass off, let us lament his lackluster help!"
I think the talk around LeBron against the Pistons and the Spurs was similar. Lets not forget that when he was losing to Boston, the Magic, and Boston he was putting up numbers just like Durant has been despite the criticism.
Plus the timing of the injury, I think people would expect more from Durant if he'd had a whole year to adjust to playing without Westbrook. This will give Durant a pass is my guess, if this were to continue next year then people will start into Durant.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I actually think Memphis could beat a healthy OKC in Seven. They're better than they were in 2011 and OKC is worse.
-
I think the 2 questionable deals by Presti were:
1. the Green/Perk trade. hated the deal for the C's but Presti committed a lot of $ to Perk without knowing how he'd recover from injury.
2. the Harden deal. too little return for who I really considered their second best player. I really thought they should have dealt Westbrook instead. Harden's a better scorer and plays a position you want to score and Westbrook could have been replaced with a competent PG that looks to primarily distribute rather than score. They need to do very well with Toronto's pick to add another cornerstone player because K-Mart ain't it.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I actually think Memphis could beat a healthy OKC in Seven. They're better than they were in 2011 and OKC is worse.
I disagree. These games have all come down to one possession in the last two minutes of every game. I believe Westbrook tips the scales in OKC's favor considering how close these two teams are as is.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I agree with the premise, but ... Presti overpaid wildly for Perkins and didn't get anything remotely close to value for either Green or Harden.
He isn't the genius people have made him out to be ... Ainge also stole his wallet in the Ray Allen deal ... although he's held harmless for the Westbrook injury. Clearly, those things happen.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I actually think Memphis could beat a healthy OKC in Seven. They're better than they were in 2011 and OKC is worse.
With Russ, OKC are overwhelming favorites and win in 5, or 6 tops.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I actually think Memphis could beat a healthy OKC in Seven. They're better than they were in 2011 and OKC is worse.
With Russ, OKC are overwhelming favorites and win in 5, or 6 tops.
What do you base this on? Memphis won the regular reason series between them, with both at full strength in all 3 games. Sure, regular season isn't a great predictor of playoff success, but there is nothing to indicate that at full strength this wouldn't have been a very close series.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I actually think Memphis could beat a healthy OKC in Seven. They're better than they were in 2011 and OKC is worse.
With Russ, OKC are overwhelming favorites and win in 5, or 6 tops.
What do you base this on? Memphis won the regular reason series between them, with both at full strength in all 3 games. Sure, regular season isn't a great predictor of playoff success, but there is nothing to indicate that at full strength this wouldn't have been a very close series.
I think the "overwhelming favorites" line refers to others' assessments, not yours individually.
Every ESPN writer, for example, picked the Thunder to go farther in the playoffs than Memphis before Westbrook got hurt.
Hollinger had the Thunder's chances of winning it all as around ten times greater than Memphis'.
Vegas had the Thunder 4-1 and the Griz 30-1 to win it all at the start of the playoffs.
These evaluations all considered the possibility that the Grizzlies and Thunder would meet in the playoffs, so I think a natural conclusion is that the Thunder were heavily favored in that event.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I agree with the premise, but ... Presti overpaid wildly for Perkins and didn't get anything remotely close to value for either Green or Harden.
He isn't the genius people have made him out to be ... Ainge also stole his wallet in the Ray Allen deal ... although he's held harmless for the Westbrook injury. Clearly, those things happen.
His track record in trades isn't great. His ability to draft is pretty legit. Ibaka was a great find. No one had Westbrook going that high, but he saw the potential. Harden was a good pick. Reggie Jackson. His years with the Spurs and his drafting of Tony Parker.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I actually think Memphis could beat a healthy OKC in Seven. They're better than they were in 2011 and OKC is worse.
With Russ, OKC are overwhelming favorites and win in 5, or 6 tops.
What do you base this on? Memphis won the regular reason series between them, with both at full strength in all 3 games. Sure, regular season isn't a great predictor of playoff success, but there is nothing to indicate that at full strength this wouldn't have been a very close series.
I think the "overwhelming favorites" line refers to others' assessments, not yours individually.
Every ESPN writer, for example, picked the Thunder to go farther in the playoffs than Memphis before Westbrook got hurt.
Hollinger had the Thunder's chances of winning it all as around ten times greater than Memphis'.
Vegas had the Thunder 4-1 and the Griz 30-1 to win it all at the start of the playoffs.
These evaluations all considered the possibility that the Grizzlies and Thunder would meet in the playoffs, so I think a natural conclusion is that the Thunder were heavily favored in that event.
Perhaps the Hollinger formula and not necessarily Hollinger, since I really doubt he would be giving those odds against the team he's VP of basketball ops for. ;)
-
They were going to lose Green anyways in FA, so getting a big man who you did want to pay was a win for him.
I can't even blame him for the Perkins contract, he couldn't have known or planned for how the new CBA would impact how salary limited he'd be. Remember they could have amnestied Perkins to eliminate that constraint, its not Perkins salary that matters. Its Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka that made them decline to pay Harden.
He chose Ibaka over Harden and then chose to trade Harden during the offseason instead of rolling the dice forward to try and win this year. Those are the two things that jump out to me.
The main thing for me was trading for Perkins who had a devastating knee injury. He came back for some games and looked decent and then injured either that knee or his other knee and was out a while.
Pretty big risk for a big guy like Perk having knee problems like that.
-
People seem to forget that while Harden and Westbrook were lottery picks they were by no means 'sure things.' A LOT of people really doubted the picks at the time.
You can play Monday quarterback on the Perkins trade, but people forget that moving Green freed up playing time for both Harden and Ibaka. Presti also refused to give up Harden in the trade.
As who said, Scott Brooks is the problem. Russell Westrbook getting injured will be the best thing that ever happened to the team, b/c it's exposed his limited offensive sets and stubbornness. Can him, hire Brian Shaw, watch the championships pile up.
i mean...okc may jus be 2nd round exits this season. westbrook is an important part of the team. no he may not finish as well as durant, but without harden, he's easily the best playmaker on the team. besides, he's only 24, he has room to grow. its amazin how much ppl hate him to the point where someone actually says that a season ending injury will be the best thing that's ever happened to a team. like wth.
-
I don't think you can really ask this qyestion until we see what the lottery pick they got from Toronto turns into. Kevin Martin was not the main piece in the Harden trade. This pick was.
If they pick Saric and he turns into a great player then how can you say he messed up?
OKC is a small market team. They can't support three max guys and place quality role players around them. The next CBA really doesn't allow any team to have three max guys anymore.
Also it's not that smart to be so top heavy in regards to your contracts. Look at the Lakers. One guy goes down and you're done.
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt and they're on their way to the Finals is this even a question?
I actually think Memphis could beat a healthy OKC in Seven. They're better than they were in 2011 and OKC is worse.
With Russ, OKC are overwhelming favorites and win in 5, or 6 tops.
What do you base this on? Memphis won the regular reason series between them, with both at full strength in all 3 games. Sure, regular season isn't a great predictor of playoff success, but there is nothing to indicate that at full strength this wouldn't have been a very close series.
I think the "overwhelming favorites" line refers to others' assessments, not yours individually.
Every ESPN writer, for example, picked the Thunder to go farther in the playoffs than Memphis before Westbrook got hurt.
Hollinger had the Thunder's chances of winning it all as around ten times greater than Memphis'.
Vegas had the Thunder 4-1 and the Griz 30-1 to win it all at the start of the playoffs.
These evaluations all considered the possibility that the Grizzlies and Thunder would meet in the playoffs, so I think a natural conclusion is that the Thunder were heavily favored in that event.
Perhaps the Hollinger formula and not necessarily Hollinger, since I really doubt he would be giving those odds against the team he's VP of basketball ops for. ;)
Perhaps he rigged his model to under-predict MEM's odds, so that they would outperform and he would look better as VP!
-
People seem to forget that while Harden and Westbrook were lottery picks they were by no means 'sure things.' A LOT of people really doubted the picks at the time.
You can play Monday quarterback on the Perkins trade, but people forget that moving Green freed up playing time for both Harden and Ibaka. Presti also refused to give up Harden in the trade.
As who said, Scott Brooks is the problem. Russell Westrbook getting injured will be the best thing that ever happened to the team, b/c it's exposed his limited offensive sets and stubbornness. Can him, hire Brian Shaw, watch the championships pile up.
i mean...okc may jus be 2nd round exits this season. westbrook is an important part of the team. no he may not finish as well as durant, but without harden, he's easily the best playmaker on the team. besides, he's only 24, he has room to grow. its amazin how much ppl hate him to the point where someone actually says that a season ending injury will be the best thing that's ever happened to a team. like wth.
You're greatly misinterpreting what Im saying here. I'm saying Westbrooks injury has exposed Scott Brooks as a poor coach. In my opinion he's been coasting strictly on this teams talent, and has done nothing to further their chances of winning.
As is Westbrook is one of the best point guards in the league. I think he takes an unfair amount of criticism, and most of that comes because of the poor offensive sets his coach has given him.
A good coach could get even more out of Russ.
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
-
I am shocked that this thread exists. They lost an all-NBA caliber player and there is a salary cap.
The Thunder went to the finals last season while Green didn't even play a single game. And now someone is going to exaggerate the significance of losses with Westbrook out? Not only is Westbrook out, but they lost him during the playoffs will no time to adjust, and now they are playing an excellent defense.
Someone said it is not good to be top heavy with contracts. Huh? Aren't all championship teams top heavy with contracts??? We were when we won it all. The same with Miami and with LA.
If the Spurs lost Duncan or Parker in the championship years, do they win? If we lost one of our top 2 players in 2008, do we win? Do we even make it past Cleveland?
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
Or just keep Westbrook (top-5 player in league, according to ESPN)
-
yeah presti really messed up that organization ::)
-
yeah presti really messed up that organization ::)
This thread answers a question for me, honestly.
I've been thinking that many posters on this board are unfairly targeting Doc and Danny for criticism because of a "grass is greener" syndrome that prevents them from appreciating anyone who runs the Celtics, while giving those who run other organizations a free pass.
Now I have concluded that this board is just populated by a disproportionate number of grouches.
-
this thread is a bit odd. presti might be as lucky of a GM as there is in the league (3 straight years of top 5 picks in good drafts helps a lot - and they shouldn't have gotten picks that high if not for the ping pong balls helping them out big-time), but he's hardly bad. yeah, i think he made a few mistakes (perk's contract was a bit crazy and led indirectly to harden being traded), but its hard to say he's not set up OKC to be a top team (barring injuries) for a while. well...the magic ping pong balls did that more than he did, but still, he hasn't screwed much up.
-
its amazin how much ppl hate him to the point where someone actually says that a season ending injury will be the best thing that's ever happened to a team. like wth.
Seems to be a pretty common theme this year among organizations with top rated point guards. Just look at what's happened with Rose in Chicago. He went from being the golden child MVP to a media punching bag that has people honestly questioning whether the team would be better off without him in favor of Nate Rob. It's ridiculous. Then of course there's our own point guard...I don't think I need to further explain the relationship between Rondo and Celtics fans.
-
People seem to forget that while Harden and Westbrook were lottery picks they were by no means 'sure things.' A LOT of people really doubted the picks at the time.
You can play Monday quarterback on the Perkins trade, but people forget that moving Green freed up playing time for both Harden and Ibaka. Presti also refused to give up Harden in the trade.
As who said, Scott Brooks is the problem. Russell Westrbook getting injured will be the best thing that ever happened to the team, b/c it's exposed his limited offensive sets and stubbornness. Can him, hire Brian Shaw, watch the championships pile up.
i mean...okc may jus be 2nd round exits this season. westbrook is an important part of the team. no he may not finish as well as durant, but without harden, he's easily the best playmaker on the team. besides, he's only 24, he has room to grow. its amazin how much ppl hate him to the point where someone actually says that a season ending injury will be the best thing that's ever happened to a team. like wth.
You're greatly misinterpreting what Im saying here. I'm saying Westbrooks injury has exposed Scott Brooks as a poor coach. In my opinion he's been coasting strictly on this teams talent, and has done nothing to further their chances of winning.
As is Westbrook is one of the best point guards in the league. I think he takes an unfair amount of criticism, and most of that comes because of the poor offensive sets his coach has given him.
A good coach could get even more out of Russ.
If Memphis is a better team than OKC without Westbrook, how do you blame the losing coach when the better team wins?
Offensive sets are irrelevant to Westbrook. Westbrook will always take the shots that he wants to take and run the "plays" he wants to run. He has that level of confidence. And the team has success with him, so I can't fault him as much as I would like.
-
this thread is a bit odd. presti might be as lucky of a GM as there is in the league (3 straight years of top 5 picks in good drafts helps a lot - and they shouldn't have gotten picks that high if not for the ping pong balls helping them out big-time), but he's hardly bad. yeah, i think he made a few mistakes (perk's contract was a bit crazy and led indirectly to harden being traded), but its hard to say he's not set up OKC to be a top team (barring injuries) for a while. well...the magic ping pong balls did that more than he did, but still, he hasn't screwed much up.
Finally.
Presti is a lot like Ainge. Some luck, some grotesque swings and misses.
He made a hideous mistake with the Perkins trade, where he received little value for, as the above poster points out, essentially Green and Harden because he wildly overpaid for a player in clear career decline.
Presti isn't bad. I'd hire him.
But I remember fondly the characterization of him on this board - mostly by the Perkins-o-philes - as a genius after that deal.
And that deal, friends, regardless of how you spin it in a frantic attempt to avoid the "wrong" designation on the Internet, has not worked out for OKC.
-
If Westbrook doesn't get hurt, is this thread about Presti even here?
Last year Presti put together a team that made it to the Finals with the 4 most important players averaging 23 years old. That's pretty impressive.
One mistake of his, IMHO, was trading Harden when he did rather than waiting for this off season.
-
Sure, he's made some mistakes. The only mistake I blame him for is trading Harden instead of Westbrook.
Otherwise, he's done well.
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
Or just keep Westbrook (top-5 player in league, according to ESPN)
Who cares what ESPN says?
Trade him for Rondo and be able to keep Harden. I'd rather have Harden going forward.
Unselfish Harden and Rondo are a better combo with Durant.
Rondo, Harden, Durant, Ibaka are a hell of a top 4 players.
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
Or just keep Westbrook (top-5 player in league, according to ESPN)
Who cares what ESPN says?
Trade him for Rondo and be able to keep Harden. I'd rather have Harden going forward.
Unselfish Harden and Rondo are a better combo with Durant.
Rondo, Harden, Durant, Ibaka are a hell of a top 4 players.
Same salary issues still exist though.
Rondo only makes slightly less that Westbrook even on his current deal and he's due for a new contact sooner.
So they'd still have traded Harden. OKC decided it couldn't handle 4 near max players, they chose to keep Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant.
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
Or just keep Westbrook (top-5 player in league, according to ESPN)
Who cares what ESPN says?
Trade him for Rondo and be able to keep Harden. I'd rather have Harden going forward.
Unselfish Harden and Rondo are a better combo with Durant.
Rondo, Harden, Durant, Ibaka are a hell of a top 4 players.
Same salary issues still exist though.
Rondo only makes slightly less that Westbrook even on his current deal and he's due for a new contact sooner.
So they'd still have traded Harden. OKC decided it couldn't handle 4 near max players, they chose to keep Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant.
What about with an amnesty of Perk?
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
Or just keep Westbrook (top-5 player in league, according to ESPN)
Who cares what ESPN says?
Trade him for Rondo and be able to keep Harden. I'd rather have Harden going forward.
Unselfish Harden and Rondo are a better combo with Durant.
Rondo, Harden, Durant, Ibaka are a hell of a top 4 players.
Same salary issues still exist though.
Rondo only makes slightly less that Westbrook even on his current deal and he's due for a new contact sooner.
So they'd still have traded Harden. OKC decided it couldn't handle 4 near max players, they chose to keep Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant.
What about with an amnesty of Perk?
Still doesn't change the math on it.
4 guys all making on average 15 million equals $60, that's already getting near the tax level. Then you have to pay the rest of your team.
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
Or just keep Westbrook (top-5 player in league, according to ESPN)
Who cares what ESPN says?
Trade him for Rondo and be able to keep Harden. I'd rather have Harden going forward.
Unselfish Harden and Rondo are a better combo with Durant.
Rondo, Harden, Durant, Ibaka are a hell of a top 4 players.
Same salary issues still exist though.
Rondo only makes slightly less that Westbrook even on his current deal and he's due for a new contact sooner.
So they'd still have traded Harden. OKC decided it couldn't handle 4 near max players, they chose to keep Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant.
What about with an amnesty of Perk?
Still doesn't change the math on it.
4 guys all making on average 15 million equals $60, that's already getting near the tax level. Then you have to pay the rest of your team.
But for a season or two you can play that team?
That's a team that can certainly win a title. Worth running it out for a season or two if it can't last. If I was OKC I would have done that this year instead of taking the offer they took.
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
Or just keep Westbrook (top-5 player in league, according to ESPN)
Who cares what ESPN says?
Trade him for Rondo and be able to keep Harden. I'd rather have Harden going forward.
Unselfish Harden and Rondo are a better combo with Durant.
Rondo, Harden, Durant, Ibaka are a hell of a top 4 players.
Same salary issues still exist though.
Rondo only makes slightly less that Westbrook even on his current deal and he's due for a new contact sooner.
So they'd still have traded Harden. OKC decided it couldn't handle 4 near max players, they chose to keep Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant.
What about with an amnesty of Perk?
Still doesn't change the math on it.
4 guys all making on average 15 million equals $60, that's already getting near the tax level. Then you have to pay the rest of your team.
But for a season or two you can play that team?
That's a team that can certainly win a title. Worth running it out for a season or two if it can't last. If I was OKC I would have done that this year instead of taking the offer they took.
Not in small market OKC.
The Thunder's average ticket price is $47.00. Teams like Chicago, Miami and Boston have average ticket prices around $71.00. Teams like the Lakers and the Knicks have average ticket prices over $100.00. All those teams average about 18,000 people per game. That means teams like Boston, Miami and Chicago generate over $17 million more in revenue simply at the gate. A team like the Knicks with an average ticket of $120.00 generates over $53 million more in revenue at the gate.
BTW, I know teams share a small percentage of gate receipts. I am taking as a constant that the money going out for these teams is about equal to the money coming in for these teams.
Now take into consideration the local television and radio deals. Which cities do you think have larger deals locally? The Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Heat, and Bulls of the NBA of the Thunder, Bobcats, Grizzlies and Spurs of the NBA. In fact the local revenue generated by the larger markets is huge.
Simply put, OKC can not sustain 4 max level players even for one year, never mind a few. They will tens of millions of dollars a year if they do. Why do you think it is that the larger market teams are the ones in the luxury tax? They generate the revenue to be able to afford the tax and still pull a profit. OKC can not do that.
-
its amazin how much ppl hate him to the point where someone actually says that a season ending injury will be the best thing that's ever happened to a team. like wth.
Seems to be a pretty common theme this year among organizations with top rated point guards. Just look at what's happened with Rose in Chicago. He went from being the golden child MVP to a media punching bag that has people honestly questioning whether the team would be better off without him in favor of Nate Rob. It's ridiculous. Then of course there's our own point guard...I don't think I need to further explain the relationship between Rondo and Celtics fans.
No, its not Rondo and Celtics fans, its Rondo and Celticsbloggers. The casual fan has not driven themselves insane by overthinking and therefore, recognize how great Rondo is.
-
this thread is a bit odd. presti might be as lucky of a GM as there is in the league (3 straight years of top 5 picks in good drafts helps a lot - and they shouldn't have gotten picks that high if not for the ping pong balls helping them out big-time), but he's hardly bad. yeah, i think he made a few mistakes (perk's contract was a bit crazy and led indirectly to harden being traded), but its hard to say he's not set up OKC to be a top team (barring injuries) for a while. well...the magic ping pong balls did that more than he did, but still, he hasn't screwed much up.
Ping pong balls don't help you get a number 5 pick. Quite the opposite.
Durant was an easy pick, but Westbrook seemed a generally panned pick when it happened. Ibaka was picked at #24, a pretty great pick.
-
yeah presti really messed up that organization ::)
This thread answers a question for me, honestly.
I've been thinking that many posters on this board are unfairly targeting Doc and Danny for criticism because of a "grass is greener" syndrome that prevents them from appreciating anyone who runs the Celtics, while giving those who run other organizations a free pass.
Now I have concluded that this board is just populated by a disproportionate number of grouches.
Generally agree with 99% of your comments, but I don't understand how you can lump Doc and Danny together in this sentiment. Can you imagine if we had had Presti as GM instead of Ainge the past few years? It seems as though a majority of Celts fans evaluate Ainge based solely on the acquisition of KG. From a broader perspective, I genuinely think he is a below-average GM.
-
The owners of OKC may gain or lose $50m on a daily basis with their other businesses. They could have kept Harden and paid the luxtax next year. Or they could have amnestied Park and taken a one time loss, and flirted with the luxtax while loading up their roster with vetmin ring chasers around KD, Westy, Harden and Ibaka.
The OKC franchise value has gone up by over $100 million since the current ownership bought the team eight years ago. They're 12th in revenue. They could have paid luxtax for a few years and won a few championships. Instead they traded a Top 20 player for a role player and a prospect.
Owning an NBA team is a passion project as well as a business for many NBA owners. OKC's ownership went with business over passion (although the Westbrook injury doomed this season regardless of the Harden trade).
-
The owners of OKC may gain or lose $50m on a daily basis with their other businesses. They could have kept Harden and paid the luxtax next year. Or they could have amnestied Park and taken a one time loss, and flirted with the luxtax while loading up their roster with vetmin ring chasers around KD, Westy, Harden and Ibaka.
The OKC franchise value has gone up by over $100 million since the current ownership bought the team eight years ago. They're 12th in revenue. They could have paid luxtax for a few years and won a few championships. Instead they traded a Top 20 player for a role player and a prospect.
Owning an NBA team is a passion project as well as a business for many NBA owners. OKC's ownership went with business over passion (although the Westbrook injury doomed this season regardless of the Harden trade).
NBA is a business. Unless you own one company in affiliation with another to use as a dummy corp to purposely lose money for tax purposes while the affiliated company makes money, running any company in the red because, "Oh well I make money in my other businesses" is not the way billionaires think. Nor should they. That's awful business.
Also, saying they are 12th in revenue is meaningless. How much revenue did they make and what is the difference between their revenue and the teams in the top 2-3 revenue makers in the league? How about between the top 7-8 revenue making teams in the league. Their revenues streams might be maxed out and they are 12th and possibly can not go any higher.
-
Teams making limited revenue acting like they have revenue streams like the Knicks or Lakers is the reason for the last two labor stoppages in the NBA. Presti handling who to keep and let go and how he went about it can definitely be questioned. But questioning his decision to work within a budget, to me, isn't a very high quality criticism. And I think thats as nice as I can say that.
-
Teams making limited revenue acting like they have revenue streams like the Knicks or Lakers is the reason for the last two labor stoppages in the NBA. Presti handling who to keep and let go and how he went about it can definitely be questioned. But questioning his decision to work within a budget, to me, isn't a very high quality criticism. And I think thats as nice as I can say that.
Especially when exceeding your budget disallows sign and trades and using anything other than the mini-mle to acquire FAs. Not to mention making trades harder in general.
-
The move I think he should have made was Westbrook for Rondo.
Or just keep Westbrook (top-5 player in league, according to ESPN)
Who cares what ESPN says?
Trade him for Rondo and be able to keep Harden. I'd rather have Harden going forward.
Unselfish Harden and Rondo are a better combo with Durant.
Rondo, Harden, Durant, Ibaka are a hell of a top 4 players.
Same salary issues still exist though.
Rondo only makes slightly less that Westbrook even on his current deal and he's due for a new contact sooner.
So they'd still have traded Harden. OKC decided it couldn't handle 4 near max players, they chose to keep Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant.
What about with an amnesty of Perk?
Still doesn't change the math on it.
4 guys all making on average 15 million equals $60, that's already getting near the tax level. Then you have to pay the rest of your team.
But for a season or two you can play that team?
That's a team that can certainly win a title. Worth running it out for a season or two if it can't last. If I was OKC I would have done that this year instead of taking the offer they took.
Not in small market OKC.
The Thunder's average ticket price is $47.00. Teams like Chicago, Miami and Boston have average ticket prices around $71.00. Teams like the Lakers and the Knicks have average ticket prices over $100.00. All those teams average about 18,000 people per game. That means teams like Boston, Miami and Chicago generate over $17 million more in revenue simply at the gate. A team like the Knicks with an average ticket of $120.00 generates over $53 million more in revenue at the gate.
BTW, I know teams share a small percentage of gate receipts. I am taking as a constant that the money going out for these teams is about equal to the money coming in for these teams.
Now take into consideration the local television and radio deals. Which cities do you think have larger deals locally? The Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Heat, and Bulls of the NBA of the Thunder, Bobcats, Grizzlies and Spurs of the NBA. In fact the local revenue generated by the larger markets is huge.
Simply put, OKC can not sustain 4 max level players even for one year, never mind a few. They will tens of millions of dollars a year if they do. Why do you think it is that the larger market teams are the ones in the luxury tax? They generate the revenue to be able to afford the tax and still pull a profit. OKC can not do that.
This is all true.
But I don't like it. I have always felt that a good owner is one that is willing to lose money for a year or two for the sake of winning. If an owner owns a team for 10 years and makes profit in 5 of those years, breaks even in three, and loses money in two that is not bad.
To put it plainly, I just don't like the thought of sports franchises being "strictly business". If, as an owner of a sports franchise, you're not willing to accept operating losses in individual years for the sake of winning, you don't deserve to be an owner of a sports franchise.
-
this thread is a bit odd. presti might be as lucky of a GM as there is in the league (3 straight years of top 5 picks in good drafts helps a lot - and they shouldn't have gotten picks that high if not for the ping pong balls helping them out big-time), but he's hardly bad. yeah, i think he made a few mistakes (perk's contract was a bit crazy and led indirectly to harden being traded), but its hard to say he's not set up OKC to be a top team (barring injuries) for a while. well...the magic ping pong balls did that more than he did, but still, he hasn't screwed much up.
Ping pong balls don't help you get a number 5 pick. Quite the opposite.
Durant was an easy pick, but Westbrook seemed a generally panned pick when it happened. Ibaka was picked at #24, a pretty great pick.
Durant was the biggest stroke of luck possible. Remember, that's the year when the teams with the 3 worst records got the 3 worst picks possible for them (which had a probability of well under 1% of happening - I'm convinced Stern fixed that draft lottery). Also, I agree that both Harden and Westbrook weren't slam dunks, but its not like they were crazy reaches. Again, the main point is, OKC had ridiculously high picks for a number of straight years. I'm not knocking Presti. I'm just pointing out that you give any competent GM those kinds of picks (that they lucked into - if the NBA draft was like ANY OTHER SPORT, the Thunder would never have had those picks, and we'd have Durant), they'll probably be able to build a very good team. He's a good GM. He's benefitted from great luck, and smart picking (Ibaka was a risk that worked out big-time). But OKC (a team I will always hate b/c the NBA and Bennett conspired to steal that team from Seattle) has gotten as lucky w/ the draft lottery as a team could ever hope.
-
yeah presti really messed up that organization ::)
This thread answers a question for me, honestly.
I've been thinking that many posters on this board are unfairly targeting Doc and Danny for criticism because of a "grass is greener" syndrome that prevents them from appreciating anyone who runs the Celtics, while giving those who run other organizations a free pass.
Now I have concluded that this board is just populated by a disproportionate number of grouches.
Generally agree with 99% of your comments, but I don't understand how you can lump Doc and Danny together in this sentiment. Can you imagine if we had had Presti as GM instead of Ainge the past few years? It seems as though a majority of Celts fans evaluate Ainge based solely on the acquisition of KG. From a broader perspective, I genuinely think he is a below-average GM.
Really? I've stated elsewhere my case for Danny being above average (to excellent) in the draft.
And to just take your example, even if you want to focus on the KG trade, you must recognize that it is far from one single move. That was possible because of:
(a) draft success (Jefferson, primarily),
(b) forward-looking trades (the Telfair deal, which looked bad on paper but gave us Ratliff's expiring deal), and
(c) the Ray Allen deal, which made absolutely no sense to many people at the time but was important in convincing KG to come here.
Beyond that I think Ainge receives too little credit for many other things:
(a) locking up Rondo and Perkins on deals that ended up being absolute bargains;
(b) convincing KG to sign a cap-friendly deal;
(c) getting Doc to re-sign;
(d) managing the whirlwind of trade rumors every year without completely alienating his players;
(e) trading Antoine Walker, which was an unpopular but necessary first step in changing the course of the franchise (and which turned out to be incredibly smart given Walker's subsequent rapid decline).
And the bottom line is, Ainge took over a team in 2003 with minimal talent and a recent history of early playoff exits, in a smaller market, and built it within five years into a team that won a championship and contended for several years running.
Has he made mistakes? Sure. But as this Presti discussion indicates, you can always find warts if you look for them.
But the bottom line is that measured by results, he is an unqualified success. We won a championship and were right there a couple of other times. Right now there are only a handful of other GMs in the league who can claim the same level of success.
-
this thread is a bit odd. presti might be as lucky of a GM as there is in the league (3 straight years of top 5 picks in good drafts helps a lot - and they shouldn't have gotten picks that high if not for the ping pong balls helping them out big-time), but he's hardly bad. yeah, i think he made a few mistakes (perk's contract was a bit crazy and led indirectly to harden being traded), but its hard to say he's not set up OKC to be a top team (barring injuries) for a while. well...the magic ping pong balls did that more than he did, but still, he hasn't screwed much up.
Ping pong balls don't help you get a number 5 pick. Quite the opposite.
Durant was an easy pick, but Westbrook seemed a generally panned pick when it happened. Ibaka was picked at #24, a pretty great pick.
Durant was the biggest stroke of luck possible. Remember, that's the year when the teams with the 3 worst records got the 3 worst picks possible for them (which had a probability of well under 1% of happening - I'm convinced Stern fixed that draft lottery). Also, I agree that both Harden and Westbrook weren't slam dunks, but its not like they were crazy reaches. Again, the main point is, OKC had ridiculously high picks for a number of straight years. I'm not knocking Presti. I'm just pointing out that you give any competent GM those kinds of picks (that they lucked into - if the NBA draft was like ANY OTHER SPORT, the Thunder would never have had those picks, and we'd have Durant), they'll probably be able to build a very good team. He's a good GM. He's benefitted from great luck, and smart picking (Ibaka was a risk that worked out big-time). But OKC (a team I will always hate b/c the NBA and Bennett conspired to steal that team from Seattle) has gotten as lucky w/ the draft lottery as a team could ever hope.
To debunk your logic I present David Kahn.
-
this thread is a bit odd. presti might be as lucky of a GM as there is in the league (3 straight years of top 5 picks in good drafts helps a lot - and they shouldn't have gotten picks that high if not for the ping pong balls helping them out big-time), but he's hardly bad. yeah, i think he made a few mistakes (perk's contract was a bit crazy and led indirectly to harden being traded), but its hard to say he's not set up OKC to be a top team (barring injuries) for a while. well...the magic ping pong balls did that more than he did, but still, he hasn't screwed much up.
Ping pong balls don't help you get a number 5 pick. Quite the opposite.
Durant was an easy pick, but Westbrook seemed a generally panned pick when it happened. Ibaka was picked at #24, a pretty great pick.
Durant was the biggest stroke of luck possible. Remember, that's the year when the teams with the 3 worst records got the 3 worst picks possible for them (which had a probability of well under 1% of happening - I'm convinced Stern fixed that draft lottery). Also, I agree that both Harden and Westbrook weren't slam dunks, but its not like they were crazy reaches. Again, the main point is, OKC had ridiculously high picks for a number of straight years. I'm not knocking Presti. I'm just pointing out that you give any competent GM those kinds of picks (that they lucked into - if the NBA draft was like ANY OTHER SPORT, the Thunder would never have had those picks, and we'd have Durant), they'll probably be able to build a very good team. He's a good GM. He's benefitted from great luck, and smart picking (Ibaka was a risk that worked out big-time). But OKC (a team I will always hate b/c the NBA and Bennett conspired to steal that team from Seattle) has gotten as lucky w/ the draft lottery as a team could ever hope.
To debunk your logic I present David Kahn.
Or, any number of other poor GMs. I mean, we can all find flaws with Presti's decisions (especially after the fact).
But there are so many GMs who make horrific mistakes in terms of drafts, trades and contracts year after year. How many guys on this list would rank as clearly better than him?
http://hoopshype.com/general_manager.htm