How bad did Sam Presti mess up OKC?

[guava_wrench]

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.

[CoachBo]

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.

[nickagneta]

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.

[KGs Knee]

Sure, he's made some mistakes.  The only mistake I blame him for is trading Harden instead of Westbrook.

Otherwise, he's done well.

[Snakehead]

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.

[Fafnir]

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.

[Snakehead]

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?

[Fafnir]

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.

[Snakehead]

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.

[nickagneta]

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.

[ianboyextreme]

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.

[guava_wrench]

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.

[tarheelsxxiii]

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.

[TripleOT]

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).   

[nickagneta]

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.