How bad did Sam Presti mess up OKC?

[nickagneta]

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.

[Fafnir]

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.

[KGs Knee]

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.

[get_banners]

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.

[Boris Badenov]

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.

[nickagneta]

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.

[Boris Badenov]

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