Roy H.... your thoughts on Jeff Green now?

[nickagneta]

Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure Presti kept Ibaka because he already had a pretty good SF; it wasn't because he didn't think Green was good enough.

No. Presti was willing to keep Green but Green was expecting way more money for his extension than he was worth. Presti didn't want to/couldn't pay that for someone that didn't give him the complete package. He traded Green for rebounding and inside presence and hoped Ibaka would continue to develop. Ibaka developed leaps and bounds over the next 18 months and it paid off handsomely for OKC.

But Presti didn't trade Green specifically because he had Durant. Green just didn't give that team what it needed next to Durant for the price Presti was willing to pay.

This seems pretty dubious reasoning.  Here is my reasoning instead:

Assertion 1: Durant is a better SF than Green.  No controversy there, I hope.

Assertion 2:  Ibaka is a better (or at least more prototypical) PF than Green.

Neither precludes the fact that Green is an excellent, starting caliber SF who can swing to PF.

A more logical interpretation is that Presti wanted to pay for a backup for one of them, not a starting caliber SF coming off the bench (because he knows he has to pay for Westbrook & eventually Ibaka) - no matter how good that bench SF is.

Trading Green to a team that needed (and was willing to pay for) a starting caliber SF down the road was a better realization of Green's value than having him continue to be under-utilized in the OKC system.

That's another interpretation but it doesn't make it true. Articles were ripe during Green's contract extension negotiations of Presti wanting to keep Green and as of yet, the Thunder really didn't know what they had in Ibaka. He was still a very very raw player that wasn't good enough yet for starting minutes.

Presti wanted to keep Harden too. But once again, Harden was asking too much money. Saying Presti traded Green because he had Durant or Ibaka is like saying he traded Harden because he had Westbrook. That's patently false and only a fall back. The Thunder had Durant and Westbrook so Presti felt he could trade those guys if they didn't take reduced rates.

Presti wanted to keep both players at reduced rates. Those players wanted more than Presti was willing to give so the Thunder traded them for things the team needed. My guess is if Presti had his way he would be starting a team of Ibaka/Green/Durant/Sefalosha/Westbrook and bringing Harden off the bench. But he can't afford that team.

[mmmmm]

Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure Presti kept Ibaka because he already had a pretty good SF; it wasn't because he didn't think Green was good enough.

No. Presti was willing to keep Green but Green was expecting way more money for his extension than he was worth. Presti didn't want to/couldn't pay that for someone that didn't give him the complete package. He traded Green for rebounding and inside presence and hoped Ibaka would continue to develop. Ibaka developed leaps and bounds over the next 18 months and it paid off handsomely for OKC.

But Presti didn't trade Green specifically because he had Durant. Green just didn't give that team what it needed next to Durant for the price Presti was willing to pay.

This seems pretty dubious reasoning.  Here is my reasoning instead:

Assertion 1: Durant is a better SF than Green.  No controversy there, I hope.

Assertion 2:  Ibaka is a better (or at least more prototypical) PF than Green.

Neither precludes the fact that Green is an excellent, starting caliber SF who can swing to PF.

A more logical interpretation is that Presti wanted to pay for a backup for one of them, not a starting caliber SF coming off the bench (because he knows he has to pay for Westbrook & eventually Ibaka) - no matter how good that bench SF is.

Trading Green to a team that needed (and was willing to pay for) a starting caliber SF down the road was a better realization of Green's value than having him continue to be under-utilized in the OKC system.

That's another interpretation but it doesn't make it true. Articles were ripe during Green's contract extension negotiations of Presti wanting to keep Green and as of yet, the Thunder really didn't know what they had in Ibaka. He was still a very very raw player that wasn't good enough yet for starting minutes.

Presti wanted to keep Harden too. But once again, Harden was asking too much money. Saying Presti traded Green because he had Durant or Ibaka is like saying he traded Harden because he had Westbrook. That's patently false and only a fall back. The Thunder had Durant and Westbrook so Presti felt he could trade those guys if they didn't take reduced rates.

Presti wanted to keep both players at reduced rates. Those players wanted more than Presti was willing to give so the Thunder traded them for things the team needed. My guess is if Presti had his way he would be starting a team of Ibaka/Green/Durant/Sefalosha/Westbrook and bringing Harden off the bench. But he can't afford that team.

Green is blatantly positionally superfluous with Durant.   That is something many folks have commented on since the Sonics got both players back in 2007.

Harden and Westbrook are extremely different players who play different positions.

Green (an SF) was traded for a (defensive) C  (ignoring Krstic, Nate & the pick that became Fab).

Harden (an SG) was traded for an SG (and pick).

So I don't think your comparison really holds as tightly as you'd like.

The first trade is clearly trading excess talent at one position to fill a shortcoming at another position.   

The second trade is reducing cost at the same position.

Neither trade is a statement about whether the player is "worth" what they would have had to be paid if retained.

You are spot on when you point to the fact that the budget can't always contain the cost of a player, independent of his 'worth'.

I don't think we are in violent disagreement here.  I just see a nuance in your choice of words.

"Willing to pay" and "able to pay" are different.