Huge Westbrook blockbuster w/ BOS, POR, and possibly Nets

[DarkAzcura]

Except none of the guys to OKC are remotely as good as Green or even Thompson, this isn't even a dollar for 4 quarters, its like 10 dimes. And the Heat Big 3 say hello. You can have 5 guys on court at once, and none are remotely near Westbrook. To add, you basically guarantee Durant leaves, so you've killed your future, and you've now got cap space tied up in a bunch of role players with no stars.

Meh, OKC would actually be a much better team with this roster honestly, and some of you OKC fans really aren't looking at this objectively. As a Boston fan, I honestly don't really want to do this trade. The OP has a point, but Durant and Westbrook really are best buds so it is very, very risky in general. A lot of people are really slighting guys like CJ and IT in this thread by calling them mediocre starters or bench players. IT is an all star, and he will probably still average 20 PPG with Durant his side. CJ will probably still get you 15-17 PPG. Olynyk would add a big time floor spacer to your roster. Bradley would give you the defense to actually slow down Curry one on one. Then you even have the BKN pick to add to your team which could be Simmons, Ingram, or Dunn. That's pretty damn good honestly, heh.

Westbrook has, for all intents and purposes, had an MVP caliber season, better than Durant. The pick to OKC right now is meaningless (sorry but it is), IT is an all star, swell, but he's not a third of Westbrook, and CJ is an excellent SG who would fit perfectly if they had an elite PG already which in this case they wouldn't. They'd be basically the Celtics in the West with a lot of middling talent plus Durant. Still not at GSW's level, down a star, and no way to get one until Durant is well past his prime. This is an incredibly easy pass.

Stars are overvalued to an extent. Eventually teams like OKC and Houston have to realize how important fit, balance, and the system actually matter and it isn't about how many top 10 stars you can throw together on one team while hoping for the best. I don't disagree with your opinion on Westbrook, but I'm like 90% sure the Celtics would be in the Finals if they added Durant to the Celtics tomorrow with nothing outgoing, and I'm pretty sure they could give GSW a run for their money considering they have guys like Bradley, Smart, and Crowder to throw at the GSW 3. It's not exactly a bad thing to be the "Celtics of the West + Durant" considering they are a top 7 team in the NBA without Durant.

And I'm sorry there is no such thing as a "meaningless" top pick for any team contending or not. There are so many uses for that pick. You could even trade it out yourselves for another big impact player.

[bondom34]

Meh, OKC would actually be a much better team with this roster honestly, and some of you OKC fans really aren't looking at this objectively. As a Boston fan, I honestly don't really want to do this trade. The OP has a point, but Durant and Westbrook really are best buds so it is very, very risky in general. A lot of people are really slighting guys like CJ and IT in this thread by calling them mediocre starters or bench players. IT is an all star, and he will probably still average 20 PPG with Durant his side. CJ will probably still get you 15-17 PPG. Olynyk would add a big time floor spacer to your roster. Bradley would give you the defense to actually slow down Curry one on one. Then you even have the BKN pick to add to your team which could be Simmons, Ingram, or Dunn. That's pretty damn good honestly, heh.

Westbrook has, for all intents and purposes, had an MVP caliber season, better than Durant. The pick to OKC right now is meaningless (sorry but it is), IT is an all star, swell, but he's not a third of Westbrook, and CJ is an excellent SG who would fit perfectly if they had an elite PG already which in this case they wouldn't. They'd be basically the Celtics in the West with a lot of middling talent plus Durant. Still not at GSW's level, down a star, and no way to get one until Durant is well past his prime. This is an incredibly easy pass.

Stars are overvalued to an extent. Eventually teams like OKC and Houston have to realize how important fit, balance, and the system actually matter. I don't disagree with your opinion on Westbrook, but I'm like 90% sure the Celtics would be in the Finals if they added Durant to the Celtics tomorrow with nothing outgoing, and I'm pretty sure they could give GSW a run for their money considering they have guys like Bradley, Smart, and Crowder to throw at the GSW 3. It's not exactly a bad thing to be the "Celtics of the West + Durant" considering they are a top 7 team in the NBA without Durant.

You're very confident in BOS, which is fine, but they don't have to beat GSW or the Spurs. That team gets crushed by either, and fit and system have been fine in OKC. They have a single need, a bench wing. This blows up a contender to nothing.

And sorry but the Celtics plus KD aren't beating GSW, and having a star is kinda a need.

And the top pick is fine, but it won't contribute until after Durant is done.

[DarkAzcura]

Westbrook has, for all intents and purposes, had an MVP caliber season, better than Durant. The pick to OKC right now is meaningless (sorry but it is), IT is an all star, swell, but he's not a third of Westbrook, and CJ is an excellent SG who would fit perfectly if they had an elite PG already which in this case they wouldn't. They'd be basically the Celtics in the West with a lot of middling talent plus Durant. Still not at GSW's level, down a star, and no way to get one until Durant is well past his prime. This is an incredibly easy pass.

Stars are overvalued to an extent. Eventually teams like OKC and Houston have to realize how important fit, balance, and the system actually matter. I don't disagree with your opinion on Westbrook, but I'm like 90% sure the Celtics would be in the Finals if they added Durant to the Celtics tomorrow with nothing outgoing, and I'm pretty sure they could give GSW a run for their money considering they have guys like Bradley, Smart, and Crowder to throw at the GSW 3. It's not exactly a bad thing to be the "Celtics of the West + Durant" considering they are a top 7 team in the NBA without Durant.

You're very confident in BOS, which is fine, but they don't have to beat GSW or the Spurs. That team gets crushed by either, and fit and system have been fine in OKC. They have a single need, a bench wing. This blows up a contender to nothing.

And sorry but the Celtics plus KD aren't beating GSW, and having a star is kinda a need.

And the top pick is fine, but it won't contribute until after Durant is done.

Again, you could trade the pick back out for another big player if you really wanted or needed to. I guess I will agree to disagree but we have very, very different opinions about what makes an actual championship caliber team. I lean towards more the OP's mindset. I'm not really sure what to tell you, but I don't know how you don't see it from the OP's stand point considering how team's like GSW and SAS continue to dominate. They aren't dominating by having two player sucking up 70-80% of the team's possessions. They are dominating by having a great system, a great supporting cast, and really spread out offense with great defense. OKC has barely any of this from an outsider's point of view. I'd love to have the top talent you guys have, but there is such thing as too much of a good thing. Less can be more in some instances.

[bondom34]

Stars are overvalued to an extent. Eventually teams like OKC and Houston have to realize how important fit, balance, and the system actually matter. I don't disagree with your opinion on Westbrook, but I'm like 90% sure the Celtics would be in the Finals if they added Durant to the Celtics tomorrow with nothing outgoing, and I'm pretty sure they could give GSW a run for their money considering they have guys like Bradley, Smart, and Crowder to throw at the GSW 3. It's not exactly a bad thing to be the "Celtics of the West + Durant" considering they are a top 7 team in the NBA without Durant.

You're very confident in BOS, which is fine, but they don't have to beat GSW or the Spurs. That team gets crushed by either, and fit and system have been fine in OKC. They have a single need, a bench wing. This blows up a contender to nothing.

And sorry but the Celtics plus KD aren't beating GSW, and having a star is kinda a need.

And the top pick is fine, but it won't contribute until after Durant is done.

Again, you could trade the pick back out for another big player if you really wanted or needed to. I guess I will agree to disagree but we have very, very different opinions about what makes an actual championship caliber team. I lean towards more the OP's mindset. I'm not really sure what to tell you, but I don't know how you don't see it from the OP's stand point considering how team's like GSW and SAS continue to dominant. They aren't dominating by having two player sucking up 70-80% of the team's possessions. They are dominating by having a great system, a great supporting cast, and really spread out offense with great defense. OKC has barely any of this from an outsider's point of view. I'd love to have the top talent you guys have, but there is such thing as too much of a good thing.

Like Westbrook.

And GSW has dominated one season, the Spurs are a team who's beatable by OKC right now. They play well by having multiple stars with a bunch of solid 2 way role players, which this doesn't provide. This removes a star and adds mostly 1 way role players in IT, CJ, and Olynk. The only 2 way guy is Bradley and that's not something worth what they give up.

OKC is currently at 3rd in net rating, 2nd in offense, and climbing in defense. They've had the second best rating since early December and need a small tweak, this is blowing up a team that's nearly won titles for a bunch of pieces parts.

Also, there's a pretty big gap between Houston and OKC's philosophy and abililty. That comparison doesn't even make sense.

[BleedGreen1989]

Yeah, you don't trade Westbrook.

If Durant leaves, you pitch the idea to Westbrook about being "the man" and becoming the sole face of the franchise. If he doesn't really vibe with that, THEN you explore trading him seriously.

[DarkAzcura]

You're very confident in BOS, which is fine, but they don't have to beat GSW or the Spurs. That team gets crushed by either, and fit and system have been fine in OKC. They have a single need, a bench wing. This blows up a contender to nothing.

And sorry but the Celtics plus KD aren't beating GSW, and having a star is kinda a need.

And the top pick is fine, but it won't contribute until after Durant is done.

Again, you could trade the pick back out for another big player if you really wanted or needed to. I guess I will agree to disagree but we have very, very different opinions about what makes an actual championship caliber team. I lean towards more the OP's mindset. I'm not really sure what to tell you, but I don't know how you don't see it from the OP's stand point considering how team's like GSW and SAS continue to dominant. They aren't dominating by having two player sucking up 70-80% of the team's possessions. They are dominating by having a great system, a great supporting cast, and really spread out offense with great defense. OKC has barely any of this from an outsider's point of view. I'd love to have the top talent you guys have, but there is such thing as too much of a good thing.

Like Westbrook.

And GSW has dominated one season, the Spurs are a team who's beatable by OKC right now. They play well by having multiple stars with a bunch of solid 2 way role players, which this doesn't provide. This removes a star and adds mostly 1 way role players in IT, CJ, and Olynk. The only 2 way guy is Bradley and that's not something worth what they give up.

OKC is currently at 3rd in net rating, 2nd in offense, and climbing in defense. They've had the second best rating since early December and need a small tweak, this is blowing up a team that's nearly won titles for a bunch of pieces parts.

Also, there's a pretty big gap between Houston and OKC's philosophy and abililty. That comparison doesn't even make sense.

Nah, your team style is very different obviously, but the mentality that superstars are everything and anything else is whatever is very similar between the two teams.

You don't need to continue to state how awesome OKC is. I know they are a great team. I just don't think they will actually win a championship with the way they play (and that's just an opinion). Anyway my main issue is with how you state they are "piece" parts. IT isn't a role player, bud. CJ isn't really a role player either. Bradley is currently one of the anchors and leaders of the second ranked defense in the league, and he could give you 40% from 3 in a more limited role. Olynyk is really the only true role player of the 4. The players you are getting are much better than you are actually giving credit for. I don't really care if you want them or not, but at least acknowledge what they actually are.

You are getting one of the best defensive guards in the league. One 20/7 all star. Another good scorer. One of the best big man shooters in the league. Overall, you would be getting 4 players capable of shooting 37-40% from 3 on good volume, and we haven't even mentioned the top 3 pick yet which you could flip for another all star if need be. I mean, hell, there are Celtic fans hoping to flip the BKN pick (in three way deals) for dudes like Cousins, Griffin, Love, etc. It's no guarantee, and I get sticking with what you have since you are already at the top of the league, but this isn't really as bad for you guys as you are making it seem.

Again, I totally get keeping Westbrook, but you gotta understand what you would actually be getting back in this deal which you aren't really fully comprehending I feel.

[bondom34]

Again, you could trade the pick back out for another big player if you really wanted or needed to. I guess I will agree to disagree but we have very, very different opinions about what makes an actual championship caliber team. I lean towards more the OP's mindset. I'm not really sure what to tell you, but I don't know how you don't see it from the OP's stand point considering how team's like GSW and SAS continue to dominant. They aren't dominating by having two player sucking up 70-80% of the team's possessions. They are dominating by having a great system, a great supporting cast, and really spread out offense with great defense. OKC has barely any of this from an outsider's point of view. I'd love to have the top talent you guys have, but there is such thing as too much of a good thing.

Like Westbrook.

And GSW has dominated one season, the Spurs are a team who's beatable by OKC right now. They play well by having multiple stars with a bunch of solid 2 way role players, which this doesn't provide. This removes a star and adds mostly 1 way role players in IT, CJ, and Olynk. The only 2 way guy is Bradley and that's not something worth what they give up.

OKC is currently at 3rd in net rating, 2nd in offense, and climbing in defense. They've had the second best rating since early December and need a small tweak, this is blowing up a team that's nearly won titles for a bunch of pieces parts.

Also, there's a pretty big gap between Houston and OKC's philosophy and abililty. That comparison doesn't even make sense.

Nah, your team style is very different obviously, but the mentality that superstars are everything and anything else is whatever is very similar between the two teams.

You don't need to continue to state how awesome OKC is. I know they are a great team. I just don't think they will actually win a championship with the way they play (and that's just an opinion). Anyway my main issue is with how you state they are "piece" parts. IT isn't a role player, bud. CJ isn't really a role player either. Bradley is currently one of the anchors and leaders of the second ranked defense in the league, and he could give you 40% from 3 in a more limited role. Olynyk is really the only true role player of the 4. The players you are getting are much better than you are actually giving credit for. I don't really care if you want them or not, but at least acknowledge what they actually are.

You are getting one of the best defensive guards in the league. One 20/7 all star. Another good scorer. One of the best big man shooters in the league. Overall, you would be getting 4 players capable of shooting 40% from 3 on good volume, and we haven't even mentioned the top 3 pick yet which you could flip for another all star if need be.

Again, I totally get keeping Westbrook, but you gotta understand what you would actually be getting back in this deal which you aren't really fully comprehending I feel.

Yeah, IT's kind of a role player, he's a sixth man, and CJ isn't a star either. "All star" is a very hollow accolade, so that's not swaying any opinion. IT still can't defend, nor can CJ, neither are 2 way guys which is the need. And they're giving up the entire roster for these guys.

I don't think you're seeing the huge limitations this puts on them, and somehow are really overvaluing IT in particular, who I love but isn't nearly that good.

And again, there's nothing wrong with the way they play, they have a minor need. And theres no "superstars are everything" mentality in OKC. They kinda have been willing to trade anyone for anyone. There is a difference between however not needing all superstars and needing none.

i'd say name the last time trading an in their prime superstar resulted in titles. Now try going the other way.

[DarkAzcura]

Like Westbrook.

And GSW has dominated one season, the Spurs are a team who's beatable by OKC right now. They play well by having multiple stars with a bunch of solid 2 way role players, which this doesn't provide. This removes a star and adds mostly 1 way role players in IT, CJ, and Olynk. The only 2 way guy is Bradley and that's not something worth what they give up.

OKC is currently at 3rd in net rating, 2nd in offense, and climbing in defense. They've had the second best rating since early December and need a small tweak, this is blowing up a team that's nearly won titles for a bunch of pieces parts.

Also, there's a pretty big gap between Houston and OKC's philosophy and abililty. That comparison doesn't even make sense.

Nah, your team style is very different obviously, but the mentality that superstars are everything and anything else is whatever is very similar between the two teams.

You don't need to continue to state how awesome OKC is. I know they are a great team. I just don't think they will actually win a championship with the way they play (and that's just an opinion). Anyway my main issue is with how you state they are "piece" parts. IT isn't a role player, bud. CJ isn't really a role player either. Bradley is currently one of the anchors and leaders of the second ranked defense in the league, and he could give you 40% from 3 in a more limited role. Olynyk is really the only true role player of the 4. The players you are getting are much better than you are actually giving credit for. I don't really care if you want them or not, but at least acknowledge what they actually are.

You are getting one of the best defensive guards in the league. One 20/7 all star. Another good scorer. One of the best big man shooters in the league. Overall, you would be getting 4 players capable of shooting 40% from 3 on good volume, and we haven't even mentioned the top 3 pick yet which you could flip for another all star if need be.

Again, I totally get keeping Westbrook, but you gotta understand what you would actually be getting back in this deal which you aren't really fully comprehending I feel.

Yeah, IT's kind of a role player, he's a sixth man, and CJ isn't a star either. "All star" is a very hollow accolade, so that's not swaying any opinion. IT still can't defend, nor can CJ, neither are 2 way guys which is the need. And they're giving up the entire roster for these guys.

I don't think you're seeing the huge limitations this puts on them, and somehow are really overvaluing IT in particular, who I love but isn't nearly that good.

And again, there's nothing wrong with the way they play, they have a minor need. And theres no "superstars are everything" mentality in OKC. They kinda have been willing to trade anyone for anyone. There is a difference between however not needing all superstars and needing none.

Yeah, I am one of IT's biggest supporters. He is hugely undervalued. His defensive issues are really overblown, and he's no worse than guys like Lillard or Irving on that end and no one in their right minds would ever say those are bench players. He's a 20/7 guy on 56-58% TS depending on the talent around him. He's a legit all star. There's never been such a thing as a 20/7 role player even if they are below average on the defensive end. You are using that term way too freely. He's not a bench player by any means, and he'd only be one in the sense that Harden was once upon a time, meaning if you have two 25 PPG talents in your starting lineup, there is no point in having a third 20 PPG guy in the lineup with them.

You say you are giving up the "whole roster" but I hope you understand you aren't really giving up anything of real value after Westbrook. You'd be better off getting rid of Kanter and his contract honestly, which was a mistake in the first place.

[Texas Chuck]

I completely agree that adding Durant to Boston without touching any of their core pieces--let's say Lee and Jerekbo go out--that team is really dangerous and I'd absolutely think Cleveland would have their hands full getting by them. Still not favored over the Spurs and W's obviously, but not easy outs either.

None of that makes separating Durant and Westbrook a good idea tho. Lots of ways of building a strong contender and OKC is proving that at the moment. Almost any other year they would be appreciated for just how good they are.

[VIPER8382]

Upon further review it would be best to instead turn the pick and possibly one of the other players into one better option that can help them win this year and moving forward.

Exactly.

Like Westbrook.

Which would work great if you had any assets to solve your atrocious hole at SG. Unfortunately you can't trade a pick until 2030 and McGary is the only asset I see that is worth much. Maybe there is a trade that I am missing, but to be honest considering Presti's trade history I would be very skeptical that it is going to be solved this year, and I can't imagine you even making the Conference finals with Roberson and Waiters as your SG rotation, no matter how good Westbrook and Durant are.

[bondom34]

Upon further review it would be best to instead turn the pick and possibly one of the other players into one better option that can help them win this year and moving forward.

Exactly.

Like Westbrook.

Which would work great if you had any assets to solve your atrocious hole at SG. Unfortunately you can't trade a pick until 2030 and McGary is the only asset I see that is worth much. Maybe there is a trade that I am missing, but to be honest considering Presti's trade history I would be very skeptical that it is going to be solved this year, and I can't imagine you even making the Conference finals with Roberson and Waiters as your SG rotation, no matter how good Westbrook and Durant are.

McGary and filler for PJ Tucker. THey don't need anything other than a bench wing. Roberson/Tucker would be fine. Courtney Lee is another option.

[bondom34]

Yeah, I am one of IT's biggest supporters. He is hugely undervalued. His defensive issues are really overblown, and he's no worse than guys like Lillard or Irving on that end and no one in their right minds would ever say those are bench players. He's a 20/7 guy on 56-58% TS depending on the talent around him. He's a legit all star. There's never been such a thing as a 20/7 role player even if they are below average on the defensive end. You are using that term way too freely. He's not a bench player by any means, and he'd only be one in the sense that Harden was once upon a time, meaning if you have two 25 PPG talents in your starting lineup, there is no point in having a third 20 PPG guy in the lineup with them.

You say you are giving up the "whole roster" but I hope you understand you aren't really giving up anything of real value after Westbrook. You'd be better off getting rid of Kanter and his contract honestly, which was a mistake in the first place.

Lillard and Irving are awful defenders though, so that's really not a statement. I love IT, but he is what he is, an ideal sixth man. And again "legit all star" isn't something you build around, its a guy you go for with non stars in a trade. OKC doesn't have the assets for him that are available. And "getting rid of the roster" is pretty much flipping what they have for everyone new and downgrading the most important player on the team.

I'll stop beating around the bush, but Westbrook is this year more important to OKC than Durant, flat out. We've done the discussion on the team board, you can ask other fans there, but he is.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

For Portland, it really doesn't make sense. Neither of those picks are going to be very good, with Westbrook Boston could clean up this year, and the Nets have a few years to build themselves into a playoff team again as well. Lillard isn't getting any younger, so if we trade McCollum for 2 non-lotto picks then we are just wasting Lillard's prime.

The Nets are an absolute dumpster fire. They have almost no talent, will only get a single, likely low end draft pick between now and then, and I cannot see much reason for free agents to go there. So with that said, if that 2018 1st isn't top 5 I would be absolutely and utterly shocked.

There is a lot that can happen between now and then, so no I'm not going to value that as a guaranteed top pick.