Should the Thunder start their rebuild now?

[Kizz Fastfists]

After what happened on draft night I believe Presti is going to tank this season. He is going to let Roberson and Taj walk and keep Kanter. That alone will keep OKC out of the playoffs and technically qualify as tanking, although I believe it will be argued as "retooling". It will give Presti a lottery pick next year instead of no pick. It will also keep his youth with potential, which is limited to Abrines, Sabonis and Ferguson on the team instead of losing 2 or all 3 to dump Kanter. He might trade Dipo for assets, but I don't think he'll need to as Abrines and Ferguson should have plenty of playing time with Dipo as the only other playable wing on the roster.

As for if he will go full tank/rebuild and trade Russ that depends on Russ. If Russ refuses to extend then Presti has no choice. If Russ is ok with a "retooling" then he'll stick around. Keep in mind that Russ is 4 years older than Kobe was when the Lakers started their retooling and the same age Wade was when the "big 3" got together. So you need Russ to have a longer Prime than Kobe and Wade in order for the retooling to give you just a 1-2 year window as a contender.

[slick_watts]

it really necessary to say, "no team has ever tanked and then built a championship contender" (which is false by the way)

Name the team that traded their superstar for assets and went on to win a championship.

To address your post...

[bondom34]

And of those teams, we've got like 2 who achieved the goal.

[slick_watts]

And of those teams, we've got like 2 who achieved the goal.

there you go again picking out the minutiae of a post with tons of research and interesting talking points and reducing it to a straw man out of context.

[bondom34]

Couldn't resist, since it didn't achieve the goal. Who's to say those teams wouldn't have won without the trades. And still, trading an aging star (or one you have a clear cut replacement for) is not what's being proposed. And calling the post KG Wolves and 2010s Sixers a successful rebuild is a bit much, at least for me. I'd really rather not be the post KG Wolves.

[Sun_Tzu]

And of those teams, we've got like 2 who achieved the goal.

I count 6, but maybe we count differently.
1. 76ers trade star in 1973 title in 1983, 2. Celtics trade former MVP in 1982 titles in 1984 and 1986, 3. Rockets trade HOF MVP in his prime titles in 1994 and 1995, 4. Dallas trades star in 1998 title in 2011, 5. Lakers trade star in 2004 titles in 2009 and 2010, 6. Heat trade star in 2008 titles in 2012 and 2013.
Although the average time between trading the star and winning a championship is 7.5 years, that doesn't mean the team wasn't a contender (and very fun to watch) during the years leading up to the championship year.

My personal thought on the moving goal post argument that has been brought up: the goal of the organization is to win championships, the GMs job is to assemble a championship caliber roster (I consider making the conference championship the result of the GM doing his job), it's up to the coaches and players to come through and turn the championship caliber roster into a championship.

[slick_watts]

Who's to say those teams wouldn't have won without the trades.

you're basically king straw man at this point. are you being serious?

a cogent, thought out case has been made for tanking and rebuilding, examples of rebuilds have been proposed, what more do you want? you don't have to agree. but please don't stomp on these ideas as lacking merit or stigmatize them as coming from the minds of 'trolls'. i recognize and acknowledge the challenges of tanking and rebuilding and the many reasons why a team wouldn't want to do it. there's a middle ground here where i think you can appreciate this as a course of action, but just disagree with it as a course of action without summarily dismissing it with straw men and lies.

i can't believe i forgot moses!

[bondom34]

And a cogent, thought out case has been made against it. Yet you continually dismiss that as well, so why should I honestly listen to you when you've clearly not done the same.

I agree, there is a middle ground. There is a case to be made. However to my opinion the case is much stronger for the time being that the proper course of action is not to blow everything up. I think you could appreciate that as well, but you've never so much as done anything but dismiss it, as you tend to do, which is why I generally tend to do the same in return.

[Sun_Tzu]

Couldn't resist, since it didn't achieve the goal. Who's to say those teams wouldn't have won without the trades. And still, trading an aging star (or one you have a clear cut replacement for) is not what's being proposed. And calling the post KG Wolves and 2010s Sixers a successful rebuild is a bit much, at least for me. I'd really rather not be the post KG Wolves.

Who's to say every team that won while keeping their star wouldn't have won more championships had they traded the star?

I believe I referred to those particular rebuilds as wait and see candidates.

For the record I'm not married to trading RW for assets. I could make strong arguments both for keeping or trading RW. I just recognize the reality of the current situation and the uphill battle to assemble a contender during his prime.

For everyone who is advocating we keep RW, can you tell me how many titles over the past 36 seasons were won by a team with a point guard who lead the team in either scoring or FG attempts? Does the fact that this has rarely happened (kind of like trading a star and following it up with a title has rarely happened) mean it is impossible and should not be attempted? And, can you guess the one thing all 4 of those teams had in common? Hint, the Thunder don't have it and I don't see a likely path to getting it during RW's prime.

[bondom34]

Couldn't resist, since it didn't achieve the goal. Who's to say those teams wouldn't have won without the trades. And still, trading an aging star (or one you have a clear cut replacement for) is not what's being proposed. And calling the post KG Wolves and 2010s Sixers a successful rebuild is a bit much, at least for me. I'd really rather not be the post KG Wolves.

Who's to say every team that won while keeping their star wouldn't have won more championships had they traded the star?

I believe I referred to those particular rebuilds as wait and see candidates.

For the record I'm not married to trading RW for assets. I could make strong arguments both for keeping or trading RW. I just recognize the reality of the current situation and the uphill battle to assemble a contender during his prime.

For everyone who is advocating we keep RW, can you tell me how many titles over the past 36 seasons were won by a team with a point guard who lead the team in either scoring or FG attempts? Does the fact that this has rarely happened (kind of like trading a star and following it up with a title has rarely happened) mean it is impossible and should not be attempted? And, can you guess the one thing all 4 of those teams had in common? Hint, the Thunder don't have it and I don't see a likely path to getting it during RW's prime.

I understand all this. I just feel strongly that traiding a superstar right now will yield a lowered return (see recent trades) and puts a team further from a title. I also value winning seasons without titles more than others, and the post KG Wolves and Sixers weren't wait and see, they were pretty clear fails. The Wolves haven't made the playoffs in a decade. That's not wait and see at all. Also, see the post Dwight Magic. There are plenty of cases of teams who do this and never recoup, which is much more likley in my opinion.

[slick_watts]

And a cogent, thought out case has been made against it. Yet you continually dismiss that as well, so why should I honestly listen to you when you've clearly not done the same.

I agree, there is a middle ground. There is a case to be made. However to my opinion the case is much stronger for the time being that the proper course of action is not to blow everything up. I think you could appreciate that as well, but you've never so much as done anything but dismiss it, as you tend to do, which is why I generally tend to do the same in return.

i'm not dismissive of the reasons not to tank i have openly acknowledged them. i am dismissive of them in the context of this discussion b/c they aren't relevant (i.e. "watching westbrook retire a thunder" or "what about revenue", etc.).

i think your tactic of putting out a straw man (i.e. show me a team that has won a championship after rebuilding) is counterproductive to the actual discussion. it sweeps away the subtleties of our situation, and strips out many of the unique factors surrounding the current nba and thunder team that have been cited as reasons to consider tanking.

it's even more frustrating because i know you agree that these factors exist. you agree that the warriors are stronger than any team in recent memory, and atypical. you agree that the thunder are in an awkward position in terms of cap and roster maneuverability. i think you agree, yet argue a little against anyway, russell westbrook's prime likely being over by the time the window could open up again. and you agree that sam presti is probably as good a candidate as any to lead a rebuild if it were to happen.

reconciling these factors with tanking? nope. not even an option to consider. the factors disappear when you start to use straw men like precedent for tanking teams winning a title (precedents being unimportant imo since you could find examples of both approaches working). the discussion should belong on the merits of the thunder tanking and the possibilities it could open up for the future.

[Sun_Tzu]

[/quote]
I understand all this. I just feel strongly that traiding a superstar right now will yield a lowered return (see recent trades) and puts a team further from a title. I also value winning seasons without titles more than others, and the post KG Wolves and Sixers weren't wait and see, they were pretty clear fails. The Wolves haven't made the playoffs in a decade. That's not wait and see at all. Also, see the post Dwight Magic. There are plenty of cases of teams who do this and never recoup, which is much more likley in my opinion.[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that the Wolves and Sixers are still in the rebuild that started in 2007. The reason the rebuilds have taken so much time and stalled at points is because the teams did not stay consistently focused on rebuilding (the Wolves had a nice little reboot with the Love trade), made now focused decisions too early in the rebuild, and had some bad luck. If either or both teams end up with multiple championships and several years of contention over the next ten years, I would classify it as a successful rebuild. I may take a longer approach than most since I'm a serious student of the history of the game. Success is the result of good decisions and good decisions are the result of a long term focus.

Again, I'm not completely sold on the idea of trading RW. I think it is possible to build a contender either way. As I said in my initial post, I would like to see both sides of the debate acknowledge the merits of the opposition along with the deficiencies of their own opinion. It seems to me that those advocating for keeping RW are allowing their emotions to get the best of them, thereby twisting a topic of discussion into an argument.

[Sun_Tzu]

I'll make my case for not starting a rebuild now and retooling instead. RW is an all-star primary scorer and playmaker. 36 of the last 36 NBA champions had an all-star lead scorer and an all-star playmaker (it hasn't always been the same player). He checks all the boxes that Thomas, Jordan, Kobe, and Lebron check (those 4 account for 16 of the last 36 championships). Not only does he check off multiple needs, he checks off the needs that are most difficult to fill (my opinion, not fact). Plus, he is a fierce competitor. Adams is a solid rim protector, 36 of the last 36 NBA champions had a solid (meaning above avg or better) rim protector/defensive anchor. Abrines has demonstrated the ability to be a +36% 3pt shooter (no team has won a title in the last two decades without this piece), and the team has some other young players who may develop into quality complimentary depth. The missing parts are an all-star secondary scorer, 34 of the last 36 champions have had an all-star secondary scorer (the exceptions are the 1994 Rockets and 2011 Mavs), and a couple of quality complimentary depth pieces. Chief of the missing depth pieces, as many on here have pointed out, are a backup point guard, a bench scorer, and a second rim protector (I think a small ball center who can protect the rim is a role that is vastly underrated by the average fan). The team will also have to buck the history of PGs as primary scorers having difficulty winning the title.

One out of left field thoughts I've had for getting this done is working out a sign and trade to bring in Lowry (my original thought was Paul or Lowry), then moving Kanter's expiring contract next summer to facilitate bringing in the complimentary depth to put around Lowry, RW, and Adams. Moves RW to the off guard, brings in an all-star secondary scorer who can defend, and gives the team a year to evaluate what they have to better asses what complimentary depth is still needed. I know the general consensus on here is that we should be looking at 2 way SFs as secondary scoring options, and that a backcourt of RW and Lowry is undersized, and RW may become less effective as an off guard. However, the current market for PGs is much more favorable to buyers than the market for wings, and Lowry's offensive strengths would compliment RW's. I've worked out a couple scenarios that might work cap wise, not sure what the chances are that Lowry would want to come to OKC though.

Realistically, there is nothing short of a miracle that can be done to compete for an NBA championship in 2017-2018 (same was true of 2016-2017). Therefore, any moves made during this offseason should be based on competing in 2018-2019 and/or 2019-2020. If your “retool” is focused on reaching contention after 2019-2020 it’s next to impossible to justify keeping RW from a strategic standpoint.

[bondom34]

I understand all this. I just feel strongly that traiding a superstar right now will yield a lowered return (see recent trades) and puts a team further from a title. I also value winning seasons without titles more than others, and the post KG Wolves and Sixers weren't wait and see, they were pretty clear fails. The Wolves haven't made the playoffs in a decade. That's not wait and see at all. Also, see the post Dwight Magic. There are plenty of cases of teams who do this and never recoup, which is much more likley in my opinion.[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that the Wolves and Sixers are still in the rebuild that started in 2007. The reason the rebuilds have taken so much time and stalled at points is because the teams did not stay consistently focused on rebuilding (the Wolves had a nice little reboot with the Love trade), made now focused decisions too early in the rebuild, and had some bad luck. If either or both teams end up with multiple championships and several years of contention over the next ten years, I would classify it as a successful rebuild. I may take a longer approach than most since I'm a serious student of the history of the game. Success is the result of good decisions and good decisions are the result of a long term focus.

Again, I'm not completely sold on the idea of trading RW. I think it is possible to build a contender either way. As I said in my initial post, I would like to see both sides of the debate acknowledge the merits of the opposition along with the deficiencies of their own opinion. It seems to me that those advocating for keeping RW are allowing their emotions to get the best of them, thereby twisting a topic of discussion into an argument.[/quote]
Though I'm firmly in the "no trade unless you have to" side, this is totally logical to me, and I get where you're coming from here. My thing is, looking around and seeing the Wolves/Sixers/Magic, etc not even touching success for a decade is pretty amazing, when those teams right now would kill to be in OKC's position. And right now, there's no real issue forcing a trade (unless of course he doesn't extend in which case my stance changes totally) like there was for Dwight or after AI or really even with Garnett who was older (though with this I don't even call this the post KG rebuild but post Love). It's so incredibly rare to get to the top and in all honesty for most teams it's not easy getting to even the middle tier or toward the top, where the Thunder are now.

Also, welcome to the boards by the way, glad to see a new fan around.

[bondom34]

Hard pause.

[slick_watts]

Hard pause.

[bondom34]

Hard pause.

For a year at least. This was my point, you never know when these trades open up. Don't roll eyes, this was literally what I've said.

[slick_watts]

Hard pause.

For a year at least. This was my point, you never know when these trades open up. Don't roll eyes, this was literally what I've said.

you literally said we were going to trade oladipo for paul george?

i don't see how this changes the discussion at all. the thunder aren't a contender right now. closer? maybe a bit. george is an upgrade over oladipo but not a ginormous one.

[bondom34]

For a year at least. This was my point, you never know when these trades open up. Don't roll eyes, this was literally what I've said.

you literally said we were going to trade oladipo for paul george?

i don't see how this changes the discussion at all. the thunder aren't a contender right now. closer? maybe a bit. george is an upgrade over oladipo but not a ginormous one.

I literally said you never know what trades open up like a day ago. And keep upping the goal. Hey, PG, great, tank!

[bondom34]

Jahlil Okafor put up 18/7 his rookie season.

And I'm not saying Wiggins is a full out bust, I'm saying if your goal is to tank, and you end up with Wiggins leading your team, your headed nowhere.

That's true but Wiggins isn't leading that team. By your comments you say he's the fourth best player on his team. I would say he's third. Some players won't pan out, I get that. Wiggins was supposed to be "the guy" and he probably won't be that. That's why multiple pics and multiple players are important. Nothing is guranteed. I just don't like feeling we have no way possible to improve our team, even if that's team is a lower tier playoff team.

I don't think the last sentence is true. You just never know when it's going to happen. To put a recent example to it, Portland looked flat bad most of last season. They traded for Nurkic and suddenly people think they're going to make a leap (I don't know, but maybe they will). OKC needs to find that sort of trade.