BrianDavis wrote:We didnt take the best prospect. We took the best prospect who didn't think he was going to get drafted in order to make this deal. We drafted a guy, probably 30 spots or more too early, to save money. In my opinion, thats being cheap. I'm sorry you disagree with that.
I think you're misinterpreting the events. The SBNation article on Josh Huestis and Zach Lowe's article featuring his Twitter conversation with Huestis' agent both suggest that Huestis' taking a year to play in the D-League was his and his agent's idea that they pitched to teams in the first round (likely the Spurs and the Thunder judging by Huestis' comment that he would only do this for the Spurs or Thunder). So let's sort out the implication first that the Thunder were actively seeking out a player to do this type of deal for them. That does not fit the reports.
Second, the implication that the Thunder did this to save money. That's incorrect. The most obvious reason is that drafting Huestis is not the cheapest option the Thunder could have undertaken. Had they been most interested in saving money, they could have sold the pick for $2mm -- a move that a genuinely cheap franchise such as Phoenix has been known to do. The Thunder are generally known more as a buyer than a seller on draft day. Not a thing that 'cheap' franchises should be known for. Even if you ignore the opportunity cost of not selling the pick, had the Thunder drafted a different player at #29 the first year rookie scale figure would have been ~$1.1mm. The difference between that and the NBA league minimum cap hit for the most experienced veterans is < $500k. A paltry amount, and definitely not a figure that the Thunder are hand wringing over in the draft war room considering they have moved up in the draft and purchased picks outright at far higher cash expense.
All of the evidence points to the Thunder agreeing to this arrangement because they had no intention of sacrificing another roster spot in this draft after selecting McGary. This was nearly a consensus viewpoint among draft pundits who often had Euro-stashes projected at pick #29. Saving the roster spot was clearly the impetus for OKC to make this deal -- combined with their scouting of Huestis and Troy Weaver's familiarity with him, made Huestis an acceptable value proposition for OKC at #29, even if his talent level and draft stock didn't warrant such a high selection. This distinction on draft day between value and draft stock is often made when teams consider European players who have overseas obligations. Players rise and fall every year based on their willingness to come to the NBA right away or not, their projected contract buy-outs, etc. OKC assigning greater value to Huestis for their ability to save the roster spot is not unusual.
In the end, Huestis is not likely to contribute to the NBA team at all. Most prospects drafted in that range don't even end up with serviceable role playing careers. Which brings us to our final consideration -- D-League reform. This is wading into the hypothetical now, but there's been some speculation that this move could spark league interest in reforming the D-League somewhat. Perhaps a new salary structure, or other designs that could favor the Thunder who make heavy use of their D-League association (coincidence that the 66ers are moving to OKC this season..?). Would catalyzing favorable D-League reform be valuable enough for Sam Presti to make this deal with Huestis on its own? Maybe.
At any rate, I think when you really break it down this wasn't a money saving move at all. Maybe, roster spot saving move would be a more appropriate designation if you want to derisive.
