RealGM

Estimate the ranges of these draft picks:

2021 first round draft pick from Miami and/or Houston (swap, Oklahoma City or Miami outgoing to Houston)

2022 first round draft pick from L.A. Clippers

...

For me, I'd say we probably keep our own and MIA's barring HOU blowing it up. I think MIA's pick falls in the ~20 range.

As far as the Clippers 2022 FRP goes, I'd venture to safely say it falls between ~25-30 and I'd probably lean closer to 30.

Do you guys feel comfortable moving either pick to move up in this year's draft?

getrichordie wrote:Estimate the ranges of these draft picks:

2021 first round draft pick from Miami and/or Houston (swap, Oklahoma City or Miami outgoing to Houston)

2022 first round draft pick from L.A. Clippers

...

For me, I'd say we probably keep our own and MIA's barring HOU blowing it up. I think MIA's pick falls in the ~20 range.

As far as the Clippers 2022 FRP goes, I'd venture to safely say it falls between ~25-30 and I'd probably lean closer to 30.

Do you guys feel comfortable moving either pick to move up in this year's draft?

I’ll move anything and anyone if the price is right. With so much uncertainty with future salaries, I would opt to be conservative at this point and I think that’s what many teams will do. I would only make moves right now if a team is desperate and the deal is too good to pass up. I wouldn’t re-sign Gallinari this offseason and would try shed as much salary as possible this offseason. It’s going to be a good time to not be a contender.

ThunderBolt wrote:

getrichordie wrote:Estimate the ranges of these draft picks:

2021 first round draft pick from Miami and/or Houston (swap, Oklahoma City or Miami outgoing to Houston)

2022 first round draft pick from L.A. Clippers

...

For me, I'd say we probably keep our own and MIA's barring HOU blowing it up. I think MIA's pick falls in the ~20 range.

As far as the Clippers 2022 FRP goes, I'd venture to safely say it falls between ~25-30 and I'd probably lean closer to 30.

Do you guys feel comfortable moving either pick to move up in this year's draft?

I’ll move anything and anyone if the price is right. With so much uncertainty with future salaries, I would opt to be conservative at this point and I think that’s what many teams will do. I would only make moves right now if a team is desperate and the deal is too good to pass up. I wouldn’t re-sign Gallinari this offseason and would try shed as much salary as possible this offseason. It’s going to be a good time to not be a contender.

Especially when you consider they went into the luxury tax for a couple of years. I wonder what Bennett is telling Presti. Letting Gallinari walk and trading Paul essentially pays for most if not all of it. Don't know figures off top of my head.

The weak start as general strategy was not Donovan specific.

Doing it, yelling and upshifting was a George Karl thing way back when.

I dunno off-hand who else the general strategy or the details applies to now.

I probably should have left that out, said it better or done more research.

I dunno if Donovan was intentionally playing a weak lineup with Ferguson to motivate, upshift and look good. Intentional or not, , it looks like / can be rationalized that way. Yelling or looking / talking earnest is a stylistic difference, not as important as using the first minutes to precipitate more focus / effort.

The basic idea seemed worth sharing but the delivery was weak. The other info was better and probably better alone. Probably should have edited better. Must have gotten distracted by the next thing elsewhere.

Pop was either doing the weak start / upshift (probably with yelling) consciously or unconsciously. Atkinson, looks like it for about half season.

jambalaya wrote:Pop was either doing the weak start / upshot (probably with yelling) consciously or unconsciously. Atkinson, looks like it for for about half season.

Where did you get this idea from? Genuinely curious.

For the Spurs and Nets it is the meh starting lineup followed by much stronger followup lineups.

jambalaya wrote:For the Spurs and Nets it is the meh starting lineup followed by much stronger followup lineups.

I think that is kind of a big jump to make from a logical standpoint. Is it more possible that it is a calculated strategy that the timing of certain lineups is the key to being more beneficial? I'm a big proponent of bringing certain players in later in the game than sooner depending on synergy stuff.

Yes timing may matter. Playing against 5 starters is different than 3 or less and some lineups are more or less suited for playing against 5 and some teams may not have an effective answer for playing against 5 starters and their best lineup(s) might work best against less. Playing to win mainly with bench lineups is a valid option but improving the starters is still a task not to be ignored.

But if a coach plays the same starters over and over and over and over and over, and they continue to do poorly or just not well, it is logical to say that it is an issue or at least may be a strategy- acceptable or not. If you are losing more games than winning, it isn't an acceptable strategy to me in the short run. Take a multi-year approach and not caring about this season because you are not good enough to do anything in playoffs may be the rationalization and keep bench player in bench roles and perhaps lower salaries soon. But Spurs wanted playoffs last season and the assumption was they did again. They might have better within their strategies with even one change to the starting lineup. I probably would have tried harder. It is not obvious, but they haven't tried much or very hard.

But as much as I'd look at small change, in this case large change is probably needed. Playing Forbes as a starter is probably seen as necessary to offset DeRozan's lack of a 3 pt game and D Murray very infrequent / slight one. But it doesnt work well enough and to work well enough at least 1 or 2 should be gone from starters or go be period. Don't want to start Aldridge with Poltl? Then trade one and / or get someone better than Lyles. Or trade lots more guys and speed up the transition to the next generation, that hopefully will and will need to do more than slightly lose with the starters to matter.

And same basic thing for Thunder. To do something in playoffs, it would help not to lose with the starters. Shifting from TFerg to Dort with starters did show some effort but did not solve the issue. The starters went from -5 pts / 100 poss. to -3. Maybe that would improve further. Maybe not. I'd be trying plan C and maybe D along with plan B or instead of it, even if they keep Schroder on bench and 3 PG lineups for special occasions in regular season. In playoffs I'd go 3 PGs to the absolute max (20 plus min / gm) and probably from the jump of game 1 as an underdog. Unless I did find something different from current strategy that works better than it short of starting 3 PGs. Which you are only going to find / do by trying something different and finding out instead of being content with your current strategy as it appears Donovan and Presti are. Making the playoffs without Russ was the goal and the reason for no trades but winning a playoff round would be cooler. And probably depends on things like the starting lineup doing better and the extent of use of far better bench lineups with the 3 PGs or the best of the other choices Paul / Schroder and just Paul led.

That the Thunder are a lot weaker when SGA is without Paul and / or Schroder should be a concern and worked on, on the court and off. With future drafting and other moves. Like finding wings who can do more with the ball than T Ferg, Diallo, etc. Is it Dort? Maybe but too early to say. Could they be further along to finding the next way to play (beyond Paul, Galinari and maybe Schroder) if they had prioritized that? Maybe. Should they have? Probably at the trade deadline imo after getting the value out of this stage in the first 4 months. Probably could have still made playoffs with a smart Gallinari trade. Paul probably wasn't happening yet and is easier to delay. Certainly should focus harder on development of the future next season. Either that or go harder on the now, using some draft capital. Saying you are doing both means you are not doing either to the max possible. To get to title, you probably need a to the max strategy. Maybe even to get to conference finals or finals these days. Gallo walks for nothing (probably most likely scenario) and Thunder as is are really borderline for playoffs next season. With a good trade it might have been easier.

ThunderBolt wrote:

Pillendreher wrote:

ThunderBolt wrote:

Spoiler:

So whats the deal? Are you going to stick around and be a thunder fan? Presti isn’t going anywhere unless he chooses. You have mentioned presti breaking up the young core of Harden ,Durant and Russ. That’s fair but why stick with them through last year? The post KD teams never stood a chance at winning a title.

With those teams I could at least rally behind Russ and talk myself into the star potential finally being realized. With him gone and the same people still in charge, I'm just not feeling it anymore, like at all. This is my "take a big step back and hope for a change" season. Said hope is futile though, of course.

I guess I just look at it that sports for all fans and franchises is more often disappointment than satisfaction. It sucks that we didn’t win an nba title with that core. It’s sucks worse being the Minnesota Timberwolves or New York Knicks. But I get what your saying.

Sorry for quoting an old post but I was interested on how your team was doing so well this year so I wanted to know the fans thoughts. I'm a Timberwolves fan and this guy is totally right. I don't get how there can be so much hatred for Presti. He managed to draft the top players without the top pick and should've won a title (friggen' pansy Durant had to go ride the Warrior's coattails). Now he rebuilds with the (by far) biggest compilation of draft picks ever and still has a good playoff team to put on the floor. I'd argue he's the best GM in the league. Even if he's not the best your not going to find anyone that's obviously better and will most likely be worse.

After the first few drafts, lots of Thunder fan EXPECTED 3-5 titles. The team made one finals and won 1 finals game. There are all sorts of reasons but that is what happened. They haven't done that much since Durant left... with reasons...and became the 2 time finals MVP.

Not all GMs with titles are great; but without one I'd probably show some reserve grading and give critique. Those with multiple titles are (or were) ahead of Presti. Those with 1 are ahead of him at first level of analysis. So that would be 3 with multiple titles (Kupchak is #4 but has been meh to bad for a long time) and 4 more with one. Presti might be best GM to date without a title but that makes somewhere in second five and Horst could move ahead with a title this season or maybe Lawrence Frank or Tim Connelly or Dennis Lindsay or Rob Pelinka. Or Morey, though I doubt it more than the others. So he is definitely above median but there are a half dozen who could beat him to a first title soon and some others could perhaps do it later. Presti & Morey combined are 0-24 for titles so far, going on try 25 and 26 and probably get dozens more tries. Title? Unlikely anytime soon. Probably need someone to debate / argue with them more and / or bring new value.



The biggest items unfavorable for Presti in recent years are the Harden trade, the coaches, the prioritization of young athletes over shooters, almost always insufficient veterans, not enough spending until after it was too late and mostly poor drafting after 2013.

There is no sign he wants to move on from Donovan, hire a coach for more gravitas or brilliance or give them more influence or hire anyone in front office with big-time NBA experience and success. Presti essentially "made" everyone who works for him.

There is no sustained sign on emphasizing shooters. Abrines was supposed to be a change on that. He may have disappointed them but it was a half-hearted failed experiment.

Will he mix in enough vets with all those draft picks? How much will they spend in near term and further out? Plenty of basis imo to be skeptical on both. How many draft winners is he going to pick in the coming years? 2013-19 does not make me confident.

Sure, there are many good things too. But it the 13th season it has never been enough to achieve the ultimate goal. So far.

jambalaya wrote:After the first few drafts, lots of Thunder fan EXPECTED 3-5 titles. The team made one finals and won 1 finals game. There are all sorts of reasons but that is what happened. They haven't done that much since Durant left... with reasons...and became the 2 time finals MVP.

Not all GMs with titles are great; but without one I'd probably show some reserve grading and give critique. Those with multiple titles are (or were) ahead of Presti. Those with 1 are ahead of him at first level of analysis. So that would be 3 with multiple titles (Kupchak is #4 but has been meh to bad for a long time) and 4 more with one. Presti might be best GM to date without a title but that makes somewhere in second five and Horst could move ahead with a title this season or maybe Lawrence Frank or Tim Connelly or Dennis Lindsay or Rob Pelinka. Or Morey, though I doubt it more than the others. So he is definitely above median but there are a half dozen who could beat him to a first title soon and some others could perhaps do it later. Presti & Morey combined are 0-24 for titles so far, going on try 25 and 26 and probably get dozens more tries. Title? Unlikely anytime soon. Probably need someone to debate / argue with them more and / or bring new value.



The biggest items unfavorable for Presti in recent years are the Harden trade, the coaches, the prioritization of young athletes over shooters, almost always insufficient veterans, not enough spending until after it was too late and mostly poor drafting after 2013.

There is no sign he wants to move on from Donovan, hire a coach for more gravitas or brilliance or give them more influence or hire anyone in front office with big-time NBA experience and success. Presti essentially "made" everyone who works for him.

There is no sustained sign on emphasizing shooters. Abrines was supposed to be a change on that. He may have disappointed them but it was a half-hearted failed experiment.

Will he mix in enough vets with all those draft picks? How much will they spend in near term and further out? Plenty of basis imo to be skeptical on both.

I would also factor in market advantage and ownership. Those are two absolutely key factors.

i.e. Kupchak had the luxury of the lure of LAL and amazing ownership while Presti has built a really good franchise in a smaller market with okay ownership. For this reason I have Presti firmly ahead of Kupchak.

Yes, market matters. Raptors win offers some hope. But the Spurs already showed it is quite possible.

Fwiw, this is most of a post from Apbrmetrics board:

A project could be looking at four factor profiles of the team which GMs-to-be got their most training with vs. what their own teams looked like later as GM.

An example: Presti.

Looked at his 7 yrs with Spurs vs. 6 prime early years in OKC after 2 transition seasons.

Avg. Team relative offensive rating for prime Thunder was almost 300% of Spurs avg. during his stay there. Relative defensive rating only about 1/3rd as good.

At factor level avg. on offense, Thunder were ranked 5 spots worse on team efg% but still above league average. OR%, 13 spots worse and near bottom. Own turnovers, 8 spots better and above lg avg. On FT/FGA, 10 spots better and elite.

On defense, it was 6 spots worse on opp. Efg%, -7 on DR%, -12 on opp. TO and -13 on fouling.

So not much similarity. Worse in most ways, with dribble driving being the primary addition.

If your bread n butter is dribble driving, maybe keep / play 2-3 PGs with some aptitude for that. And get more. And / or learn to be good / great at other factors. Perhaps with a different / better coach.

He tried on defense but with less success. Mostly abandoned the emphasis on vets. Spurs didn't always emphasize shooters but when they won they apparently had enough. Both had draft luck and made good decisions. It is hard to sustain draft success.


It is odd looking that Presti came from an organization with perhaps one of the most empowered coaches ever and did what he did there. Insecurity, over-confidence or just less than great recruitment / judgment? (For the Spurs I guess Pop arranged it that way and would have changed it if it wasnt to his liking. Sure had all the coaching input on front decisions that he wanted. With Thunder it was never clear but always seemed low, probably too low. GM / Coaching worlds too separate. Could be wrong, but that is my impression. )

The story isn't finished but it is in the 13th chapter. Maybe the story climax is coming in the 17th chapter. Or 19th, 21st or...


(I followed the Sonics for 20 years without a title. Good times and some disappointment. Got my taste for titles with other teams, before and during but not after actually. Didn't ever really develop a secondary team after that, though I tried a little. Titles aren't everything but they are the organizing principal / goal for me.)

Just finished a mock.

Have Jalen Smith to OKC.

viewtopic.php?f=38&p=83025144&sid=cbc5fe7c59b08ac6e2fd60281b2f7958#p83025144

Thoughts?

Achiuwa, Reed and Flynn might go lower and still be available for consideration but Smith is a decent possibility at the expected pick #. Saddiq Bey, Tyler Bey & Tre Jones are other options.

jambalaya wrote:Achiuwa, Reed and Flynn might go lower and still be available for consideration but Smith is a decent possibility at the expected pick #.

Who do you think goes ahead of them?

fattymcgee wrote:

ThunderBolt wrote:

Pillendreher wrote:
With those teams I could at least rally behind Russ and talk myself into the star potential finally being realized. With him gone and the same people still in charge, I'm just not feeling it anymore, like at all. This is my "take a big step back and hope for a change" season. Said hope is futile though, of course.

I guess I just look at it that sports for all fans and franchises is more often disappointment than satisfaction. It sucks that we didn’t win an nba title with that core. It’s sucks worse being the Minnesota Timberwolves or New York Knicks. But I get what your saying.

Sorry for quoting an old post but I was interested on how your team was doing so well this year so I wanted to know the fans thoughts. I'm a Timberwolves fan and this guy is totally right. I don't get how there can be so much hatred for Presti. He managed to draft the top players without the top pick and should've won a title (friggen' pansy Durant had to go ride the Warrior's coattails). Now he rebuilds with the (by far) biggest compilation of draft picks ever and still has a good playoff team to put on the floor. I'd argue he's the best GM in the league. Even if he's not the best your not going to find anyone that's obviously better and will most likely be worse.

Most people think Presti is either a genius who can do no wrong or a complete failure that lucked in to all success. If it’s possible to take emotion out of the equation (which isn’t for most sports fans), Sam’s abilities and decisions lie somewhere between both extremes. That’s a pretty boring take for a message board but I believe it’s the truth. I’m not hoping he gets fired or take another job but if either of those happen, I certainly believe someone else can be successful here. I also believe it’s possible that we could hire Ernie Grunfeld 2.0 and people would cry for the good old days. I’m not sure where Sam ranks among current GM’s because I don’t think all franchises give teams and equal chance to win. I don’t think he’s in the bottom fifteen. That’s kind of where I stand.

Maybe Riller, Maledon, possibly Mannion, possibly Stewart or McDaniels. I am not saying I would but some are talking that way. Or some of the guys I named as options earlier.

jambalaya wrote:Yes, market matters. Raptors win offers some hope. But the Spurs already showed it is quite possible.

Toronto is more similar to New York than OKC. It’s an amazing city.