khans2k5 wrote:The Thunder also traded Pondexter and Craig Brackins for Cole Aldrich (Pondexter would be a role player for them right now). They traded Bledsoe to the Clippers for future picks (which I can't track down at all as to what they became; not good) and proceeded to draft Reggie Jackson the following year. That's right, they could have had Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Ibaka and Bledsoe all on the same team. Imagine rotating Westbrook/Harden/Bledsoe in a backcourt. Then the big Harden trade that they royally screwed up. This all happened after drafting Westbrook and Durant, so why are they still getting credit for moves they made in '07 and '08 when we are in a system that all but guarantees they got to keep those guys for 9 years because of restricted free agency? They've recovered somewhat with the Kanter trade because he is exactly what they needed in the frontcourt, but then they negate some of it with the Waiters trade and overall they are about 50/50 when it comes to the draft whether they get a useful player or not.
They do know how to draft, that's for certain. They aren't great making trades however.
Hilarious that Scott Brooks continues to get dumped on for his seemingly loose offense (basically letting KD and RW create on their own) while David Blatt gets a HIGHER ranking while having even LESS control over the on-court product than Brooks.
TheGrey08 wrote:4 straight NBA finals with 3 of the best players in the world who came together a year earlier talking about wanting to play together. Sorry if I'm not that impressed there b/c that never happens otherwise. Give any front office that massive of a head start and they'd have to be awful to mess that up. Yes props to them for dumping their entire roster. Props for the Dragic trade. Props for taking a flier on Whiteside. I like what they've done, but still don't see how they've done enough to be ranked that high.
Meanwhile the Thunder who built their team in a much more difficult way with numerous successful drafts don't get credit b/c they've had injuries lately and haven't put it all together, but look at that roster and all the talent they've developed.
OKC did the only thing they could do drafting Durant. It was a no-brainer. (If you discount Miami putting each team together... I guess that works both ways) They made a very good pick in Westbrook. And struck gold with Ibaka where they got him.
Those were all several years ago. Since, they've butchered (miscalculated) the Harden saga. They also whiffed on Lamb. They kept Perkins too long. Et al. I'm not saying they should be ranked low. But you can only run on the fumes of previous decisions for so long...
Durant was the 1 sure bet they had which I was already considering with my statements. That doesn't quite compare to the Heat situation. If 2 or 3 guys were all sure bet picks then I could see it.
The screw up with Harden was the return they got for him. It came down to keeping Ibaka OR Harden. They knew they couldn't keep both while still keeping Durant/Westbrook. One of them had to go unless the owner wanted to take a monster risk of resigning all of them for max money while paying heavy taxes. I'm not saying they should be up there at the top either, but they shouldn't be that low considering all the picks they have nailed and have made some positive moves like the Kanter trade.
Grey... I agree that they aren't bad. Just pointing out that they've had their own foibles.
The Harden one is a mistake. I called it then... I'm calling it now. It didn't have to be a Harden OR Ibaka thing. That's the mistake they made.
At the time I said that the owners had a golden goose. A new franchise with two superstars that won immediately. They had so much goodwill with the OKC fanbase that just about anything would be palatable. They took advantage of it and may have compromised title hopes along with it... to line their own pockets a bit more. Now, they're facing the threat (and legit possibility) of the game's second best player leaving next season.
[note: i admit to having a bias toward okc management for the dubious way they lied their way out of seattle.]
AbeVigodaLive wrote:Grey... I agree that they aren't bad. Just pointing out that they've had their own foibles.
The Harden one is a mistake. I called it then... I'm calling it now. It didn't have to be a Harden OR Ibaka thing. That's the mistake they made.
At the time I said that the owners had a golden goose. A new franchise with two superstars that won immediately. They had so much goodwill with the OKC fanbase that just about anything would be palatable. They took advantage of it and may have compromised title hopes along with it... to line their own pockets a bit more. Now, they're facing the threat (and legit possibility) of the game's second best player leaving next season.
[note: i admit to having a bias toward okc management for the dubious way they lied their way out of seattle.]
Was it realistic to expect them to keep 4 max or near max players? Honest question.
Personally if I was in that situation I'd want to leave a little on the table if I enjoyed playing with the other 3. It was a huge opportunity for all of them, not just the front office.
As for the Seattle situation. I really hated that too, but outside of ownership (which is a big part of the grade I think), how much of that management is still there?
AbeVigodaLive wrote:Grey... I agree that they aren't bad. Just pointing out that they've had their own foibles.
The Harden one is a mistake. I called it then... I'm calling it now. It didn't have to be a Harden OR Ibaka thing. That's the mistake they made.
At the time I said that the owners had a golden goose. A new franchise with two superstars that won immediately. They had so much goodwill with the OKC fanbase that just about anything would be palatable. They took advantage of it and may have compromised title hopes along with it... to line their own pockets a bit more. Now, they're facing the threat (and legit possibility) of the game's second best player leaving next season.
[note: i admit to having a bias toward okc management for the dubious way they lied their way out of seattle.]
The reality was that they had to move one of those 4. What they traded for didn't pan out but out of Durant, Westbrook, harden, and ibaka who would you choose to trade? I trade harden every time in that group when you are building a team.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:Grey... I agree that they aren't bad. Just pointing out that they've had their own foibles.
The Harden one is a mistake. I called it then... I'm calling it now. It didn't have to be a Harden OR Ibaka thing. That's the mistake they made.
At the time I said that the owners had a golden goose. A new franchise with two superstars that won immediately. They had so much goodwill with the OKC fanbase that just about anything would be palatable. They took advantage of it and may have compromised title hopes along with it... to line their own pockets a bit more. Now, they're facing the threat (and legit possibility) of the game's second best player leaving next season.
[note: i admit to having a bias toward okc management for the dubious way they lied their way out of seattle.]
The reality was that they had to move one of those 4. What they traded for didn't pan out but out of Durant, Westbrook, harden, and ibaka who would you choose to trade? I trade harden every time in that group when you are building a team.
Not really, the Thunder would of probably of had to pay the tax for one season.
Easy to say now in hindsight. A the time 20% of GMs thought they made the wrong decision. If you polled them again it probably would be much higher due to hindsight with how good Harden turned out to be as well as how the cap increased.
