TeamRicky wrote:Does Durant stay now? He probably wants OKC to add an impact free agent. I wonder who they might be looking to sign. They need a shooter that can replace Roberson.
If Durant leaves, he's an idiot. The Thunder just lost to the team with the best regular season record in NBA history. No shame in that. And where in the heck is Durant going to go where he can count on taking the best team in NBA history deep into game?? He's surrounded by terrific talent in Westbrook, Ibaka, Adams, Kanter and Waiters. If he's looking to place blame for not advancing he should hold himself accountable. But truth is, the Thunder are probably the second best team in the NBA. They simply lost to the best.
I think he's returning too, but I think he'll use his leverage to get OKC to commit to using free agency to add some shooting. Maybe Ryan Anderson or Courtney Lee.
I don't think he'll have to use leverage to get the organization to do what you've suggested or something similar. Having gotten this close I'm sure ownership and the basketball ops department want to add pieces to get them over the hump next season. Anderson or Lee would be a good acquisition. I don't know their cap space situation. They could really benefit from adding a guy like Deng.
The Thunder's cap situation is hopeless with no room to do anything this summer, and that's why I don't see it as a given that Durant stays (although I think he will). The Thunder have $70 million tied up in only 11 players, and that doesn't include Durant or Waiters. Durant alone gets them over the salary cap and handcuffs them from signing other free agents. I guess they could wait to sign Durant until after they have already signed the free agents they want, but a guy like Anderson is going to command over $20 million this year. If they sign a guy like Anderson for what he is worth along with Waiters and another player to fill out the roster, and then sign Durant for a 1-year max, they would be WAY over the luxury tax level. OkC is owned by a group of local businessmen, none of whom are billionaires like many NBA owners (including ours), and they are unlikely to want to pay the punitive lux tax. They showed their hand a few years ago by trading Harden to avoid the lux. If OkC is going to win a championship, they are going to have to do it with the guys they already have,
Mstermisty wrote:Great series, super entertaining, can't wait until the Wolves are in the mix. But also watching this it just reminds you one more time how important it is to be able to shoot the 3-pointer in today's NBA. Right now the Wolves need this in the worst way. Assuming Murray is off the board by 5, maybe for once we don't swing for the fences and grab Hield. That said, if Dunn is the pick, or even someone else, I will trust Thibs and company did their homework and found the right guy. And I'm confident we will not draft Flynn.
Absolutely right about the Warriors underscoring the importance of elite three-point shooting in today's NBA. And it's important that one or two of your elite 3-point shooters can create 3-point looks effectively off the dribble. Fortunately, we already have one guy with that potential in LaVine. Actually, his 3-point shooting was already elite last season post-allstar break looking at both his percentage and volume. And unlike a Kyle Korver or even a Ray Allen, Zach can nail 3-pointers effectively off the bounce.
Next step in my view is to draft Hield as another guy with elite 3--point potential. Towns also has really nice 3-point potential but we'll want him spending significant time in the post so we can't count on him for volume 3-point shooting. Wiggins doesn't look like he'll be a particularly good 3-point shooter, but he can improve and at least get his 3-point shooting into the low 30s. I still think Ricky's foul shooting and history suggest he can become a decent three-point shooter. Importantly, three-point shooting seems to be infectious. That is, with a couple really good 3-point shooters and a head coach who turns the whole team loose for threes, an entire team can become effective from behind the arc. That's what we've seen from the Warriors. Green and Iggy have also become guys who can hit threes. I think Thibs really values the three so I'm hoping that he'll create a shooting culture. But that remains to be seen.
Yes, we need to be able to shoot the 3-pointer, but just as important is the ability to defend it. That means having lengthy, mobile players all over the floor that can switch and contest.
One of the things I saw last night was that every time Adams was switched onto Klay or Curry, those guys were able to get 3-point shots off. Often times it was just a little juke left or right to get him off balance and that gave them the split second they needed to let 'er fly. It's no longer good enough to get a hand up at the last second. You literally need to be able to smother these guys on the perimeter and force them to put the ball on the floor. If you can find bigs capable of switching and smothering, that is what we should be targeting if we view Golden State as the team to beat for the next 4-5 years.
Q -- I agree that defending the 3 is important. But what the Steph and Klay show us is that elite 3-point shooters can't be stopped. That's the point of having elite 3-point shooters who can shoot both off the catch and the dribble with quick moves to get space and quick releases to launch. It's a fool's errand to try to build a team designed stop shooters like those two guys. Actually, the Thunder did a pretty good job for a while.
Billy Donovan said something very revealing in his post- game press conference last night. He said this about the Warriors: "everytime we'd score a 2, they'd score a 3." The Thunder almost beat the Warriors, taking them to 7 games. The lesson in the Thunder losing the series wasn't their inability to stop the three. No one will. The lesson was, as Billy suggested, their poor 3-point shooting. The Thunder only have one arguably elite three-point shooter in Kevin Durant, a guy who hits about 38% of his threes. Westbrook is a poor 30% 3-point shooter and Waiters is ok but not close to great at 35%.
You don't have to be as good from behind the arc as the Warriors. But you have to at least be on the same level.
Q -- I'll add that we already have lengthy/mobile players at four of five positions in our starting lineup: Ricky, Wiggins, Dieng and KAT. LaVine isn't lengthy by SG standards, but he is highly mobile with average length. Otherwise, Ricky is lengthy by PG standards and very mobile. Wiggins has very good length and great mobility at the SF position. Dieng and KAT are both long and very mobile for guys at their respective positions. And with that starting lineup the Wolves beat a highly motivated Warriors team on their home court late this past season.
I do recall Sam having KAT switch out on Curry in that win over the Warriors and it seemed to be effective. So I do think you make a good point. I actually think we have the players already to at least mount reasonable defense against the Warriors two 3-point stars.
Yes, Sam actually employed that automatic switching defense twice against GS last season, and it really frustrated Curry. We beat them in Oakland with Curry going 4-14, and almost beat them at home with Curry going 2-9. KAT's and Gorgui's length and quick feet really bothered Curry. Thibs is a student of the game, and I'm comfortable Sam's defensive strategy registered with him. We are really lucky to have 2 mobile 7 footers that allow us to play that defensive strategy when appropriate.
OKC needs a reliable shooter or shooters to take Roberson and Waiters spots. Just one reliable shoot in place of Roberson would be huge, while not losing much defensively.
Duke13 wrote:OKC needs a reliable shooter or shooters to take Roberson and Waiters spots. Just one reliable shoot in place of Roberson would be huge, while not losing much defensively.
That's been their problem for years, right?
They've added guys like K. Martin and even A. Morrow... but they're both pretty terrible defensively.
3 and D guys are what everybody wants. Obviously, OKC is included in that mix...
Duke13 wrote:OKC needs a reliable shooter or shooters to take Roberson and Waiters spots. Just one reliable shoot in place of Roberson would be huge, while not losing much defensively.
That's been their problem for years, right?
They've added guys like K. Martin and even A. Morrow... but they're both pretty terrible defensively.
3 and D guys are what everybody wants. Obviously, OKC is included in that mix...
Right, very difficult to find a guy that can defend like Roberson and shoot like Morrow. They had Thabo who fulfilled this role pretty well for a couple of years, but have struggled since then to identify someone that can do both well.
I think teams can still get away with having a Roberson or Tony Allen type player in their lineup that isn't really a threat from 3, but they can't have multiple players like that. In OKC's case, Durant was really their only volume 3 threat in the rotation.
lipoli390 wrote:Q -- I agree that defending the 3 is important. But what the Steph and Klay show us is that elite 3-point shooters can't be stopped. That's the point of having elite 3-point shooters who can shoot both off the catch and the dribble with quick moves to get space and quick releases to launch. It's a fool's errand to try to build a team designed stop shooters like those two guys. Actually, the Thunder did a pretty good job for a while.
Billy Donovan said something very revealing in his post- game press conference last night. He said this about the Warriors: "everytime we'd score a 2, they'd score a 3." The Thunder almost beat the Warriors, taking them to 7 games. The lesson in the Thunder losing the series wasn't their inability to stop the three. No one will. The lesson was, as Billy suggested, their poor 3-point shooting. The Thunder only have one arguably elite three-point shooter in Kevin Durant, a guy who hits about 38% of his threes. Westbrook is a poor 30% 3-point shooter and Waiters is ok but not close to great at 35%.
You don't have to be as good from behind the arc as the Warriors. But you have to at least be on the same level.
Agree, you can't totally stop the 3 and that means you have to be able to fight fire with fire, which is why I think Cleveland could be up to the task. While they don't have anyone on Klay or Curry's level, they have more guys at more positions that can shoot the 3 in high volume.
lipoli390 wrote:Q -- I'll add that we already have lengthy/mobile players at four of five positions in our starting lineup: Ricky, Wiggins, Dieng and KAT. LaVine isn't lengthy by SG standards, but he is highly mobile with average length. Otherwise, Ricky is lengthy by PG standards and very mobile. Wiggins has very good length and great mobility at the SF position. Dieng and KAT are both long and very mobile for guys at their respective positions. And with that starting lineup the Wolves beat a highly motivated Warriors team on their home court late this past season.
I do recall Sam having KAT switch out on Curry in that win over the Warriors and it seemed to be effective. So I do think you make a good point. I actually think we have the players already to at least mount reasonable defense against the Warriors two 3-point stars.
Mostly true, although I'm not sure how well Dieng does in space. He also has a hard time staying down on pump fakes, but hopefully that continues to get better with time.
I always like to go back to those trades floated on this board involving WCS and Nerlens Noel. Both are still fairly young and have tremendous defensive versatility.
