RealGM

Lost in Oklahoma

As for Oklahoma City, let me digress for a moment and discuss how bad this team was in 2007-08. Prior to this past season, here are the three worst teams in Seattle since 1973-74 (the first year we can calculate offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, and efficiency differential).

1984-85: -5.30 efficiency differential, 31 wins

2005-06: -3.16 efficiency differential, 35 wins

2006-07: -3.03 efficiency differential, 31 wins

Clay Bennett purchased this team in 2006. So he inherited a bad team that didn’t improve much in his first year of ownership. And then last year, as Bennett was looking to move his team to Oklahoma - and consistent with the plot of the movie Major League (a point I made a few weeks ago) - the Sonics managed to reach historic levels of “badness.” The team’s efficiency differential of -8.75 was easily the worst in franchise history.

And when we move from efficiency differential to Wins Produced, we see that this result was not surprising.

Table One: The Seattle Super Sonics in 2007-08

If we take as given the performance of Kevin Durant and Jeff Green, the Sonics should have expected - given what their veteran players did in the past - 13.7 victories in 2007-08. The improved play of Nick Collison and Kurt Thomas allowed the team to get to 17.7 Wins Produced. Given this meager Wins Produced total, it’s not surprising that of the players Seattle employed who played at least 100 minutes last year, only three - Collison, Thomas, and Earl Watson - were above average in 2007-08 (average WP48 is 0.100).

Thomas was essentially given to the Spurs last year (for Francisco Elson and a likely low first round draft choice). And in the lottery this year the Sonics selected Russell Westbrook, a likely replacement for Watson. Erich Doerr’s draft analysis is pessimistic on Westbrook, so it’s not likely that Westbrook will come into the league and post above average numbers ini 2008-09.

Collison finished last year in Seattle’s starting line-up, but did spend the majority of the year coming off the bench. If Westbrook takes Watson’s starting slot, and Collison returns to the bench in 2008-09, it’s possible that the Oklahoma City Whatevers will field a starting line-up without a single above average performer.

Of course Oklahoma City fans shouldn’t worry. According to Berry Tramel of The Oklahoman (again Hat Tip to Henry Abbott at True Hoop), Desmond Mason is just “the kind of player every franchise can use.” This is the same Mason who produced -2.3 wins the last time he played home games in Oklahoma (in 2006-07 when the Hornets played games in Oklahoma City).

Mason, though, is not coming alone. Oklahoma City has also added Joe Smith. Smith has produced less than three wins per season in his career. Hardly the production you would expect from a number one pick, and hardly the production Oklahoma City will need to field a winning team.

Okay, it doesn’t look like Mason and Smith are really going to help. Yes, it’s not likely Ridnour and Griffin (the latter because he doesn’t get to play much) weren’t going to help either. But the question is whether this move really makes Oklahoma City better. And when we look at the roster assembled in Oklahoma City we do not expect to see a winning team. In fact, one wonders if this team will be the worst team in the league in 2008-09. With only two above average performers - Collison and Watson - it certainly looks bleak.

As noted a few weeks ago, though, the Memphis Grizzlies only have one above average player. So the Grizzlies are favored to win the race to the depths of the league. Plus, it’s possible that Kevin Durant could finally live up to the promise of his college numbers (it’s also possible he won’t also). Unfortunately, even if Durant turned out to be amazing (where amazing is a WP48 of 0.200), Oklahoma City is still going to see a losing team next season.

Before moving on, let me comment once again on the wonder that is cap room. Like Milwaukee (again, as Hollinger notes), Oklahoma City does get cap relief from this move. Cap relief, though, by itself, doesn’t win games. Games are won because you acquire productive players. You can do this via draft choices and/or free agency. But just having the opportunity to select players - as we see if we review past draft choices and free agent selections that failed - is not good enough.

We can imagine, though, that this cap room and future draft choices will someday turn into amazing talents. While we are imagining, though, we have to face the reality that for 2008-09 this team is not going to be very good. And this team is going to have to acquire a number of productive players before this reality changes.

- David Berri

The WoW Journal

I don't think it's huge news that, if several key players do not significantly elevate their level of play, this year will be pretty dry in the win column. That said, with the improvement of Durant and Green and what I see as an underestimation of Westbrook, this team can be just below average (and not bag over your head horrible). I think they'll land pretty close to the 25-35 wins that most are predicting. Obviously this move was about brining in a couple of quality character guys, an OKC guy, and a bunch of cap space. Despite his brief dismissal of the value of cap space and draft picks, I don't think there is any illusion that a couple of the best avenues that bad teams have to get better are draft picks and free agency.

It is a very near sighted comment on the trade. I don't think that anyone thinks that this team is going to be a playoff team either this year or the next. The trade was done to acquire veterans that can help this team mature in a way that will impact future winning, and also to secure more cap savings for next year. People need to realize that 2008/09 isn't the last year that the NBA is going to exist, there is going to be a 2009/10, 2010/11, etc. The front office could have thrown money at veterans in an attempt to win 35-40 wins but just ask Sacramento how far that gets you in the ultra competitive western conference.

I wouldnt give this article much thought as stated previously were not in win now mode were in develop mode we have numerous young prospects to develop and crafty vets to teach them the ropes.This season Im not looking at the win losss column Im looking at the improvement of Durant,Green and Westbrook .Then hope we get a nice bounce on the ping pong balls.

I don't think there is much to criticize us for on the trade. We got two expiring contracts and some veteran help for our third string point guard and a player that would not have seen the floor.

But when referring to how bad we were last year and how bad we will be next year, the article was accurate. We are that bad, and we did little this off-season to improve our immediate prospects. After the improvements to Miami and Minnesota we will be competing with Memphis for the most ping pong balls.

I don't understand how somebody could be down on this trade from OKC's side in all honesty?

You deal two players that had no place on the team and get a couple of players who are at least proven rotation quality veterans in Joe Smith and Desmond Mason who both come off the cap at the end of the season.

They are almost a sure bet to deal either Chris Wilcox, Joe Smith or Donyell Marshall if not two or three of them at the deadline for either draft picks or young talent.

I think the core of the team is set up pretty well at this point, with a nice five player core and plenty of pending capspace and draft picks.

Durant
Westbrook
Green
Watson
Collison

When you swap 2 guys that wont play for 2 that will, how is that bad? Both contracts are done at the end of the year. I dont see the negative here.

bmw42690 wrote:When you swap 2 guys that wont play for 2 that will, how is that bad? Both contracts are done at the end of the year. I dont see the negative here.

John Hollinger's take makes much more sense. Sam Presti is doing a really good job rebuilding Oklahoma. I'd be excited about the future if I were a Oklahoma City fan.

I'm sure you guys have posted it on here before, but in case some haven't seen it.

john hollinger wrote:But regardless of whether you think Cleveland or Milwaukee got the better end of the Williams exchange, one thing is absolutely for certain: Oklahoma City made out like a bandit.

OKC traded Ridnour and Griffin for Mason and Smith, straight up. When you trade two-for-two like that, you aren't supposed to get rid of the two worst and get the two best in return. Somehow, the Okies did. Dumping Ridnour is especially sweet because he had two years and $13 million left on his deal and wasn't going to play this year; I had suspected they would have to pay somebody to take him, not the other way around.

Instead, Oklahoma City somehow walked away from this trade with two decent players, also managing to shave $6.6 million off its payroll and set itself up to be as much as $30 million under the cap next summer.

And there's more to come. Oklahoma City can turn around and deal Smith and Mason at the trade deadline, or even earlier, and get a draft pick in return for an expiring contract of a less valuable player. Doing so would echo last year's maneuver with Kurt Thomas, when the artists formerly known as the Sonics got two first-round picks from Phoenix as a reward for taking Thomas, then a third one when they flipped him at the trade deadline.

Add it all up and the logic works for me for just two of the three parties. Cleveland upgrades its shaky point guard spot and makes nice with its star player, and Oklahoma City basically turns nothing into something by unloading Ridnour for two useful players.

Milwaukee? I'm still puzzled by that end of it, and at the end of the day, it appears the Bucks dumped one of their best players for pennies on the dollar.

Who wins, who loses in Williams deal?

So apparently his problem isn't that OKC didn't upgrade in talent or salary structure (they did both). His problem with the trade is that it didn't turn the team into an instant winner. Presti should be fired for not making the obvious move that would turn OKC into a playoff team next year. Wait, what move was going to do that, Dave? Berri can shove his "win scores" up his butt.

I would really say that his biggest problem is that he doesn't see (or at least award) any value for clearing salary cap space, which was at least one of the primary motivations behind the move. I would say that even salaries aside, we got the best deal (not a big fan of mo williams).

Look, two good things came about with this trade. First, they seized a chance to trade Ridnour, who has been available for a while. Second, it also gave them more flex room for next summer in free agency, plus it consolidates the pointguard position so much better.

It's irrelevant whether Mason and Smith will make more of a difference than Ridnour and Griffin. For those of us that have followed the team in Seattle we realize how Presti has been "setting the table" in order to reshape the team next summer.

Presti knows he has a "honeymoon period" and the 08-09 season means nothing in terms of wins and losses since history says that a teams first season will draw many fans regardless. And unless Presti plans on trading Collison then they won't be in any competition with Memphis since the Grizzlies will have power forward(their position of need) Blake Griffin high on their radar for the next draft(as long as Marc Gasol pans out) so with centers being the top draft prospects next draft( a position of need) OKC should be able to have a good draft regardless.

The trade really was a minor one in respect of talent being moved around. It was all about repositioning, which was mission accomplished.

I really don't see how people are viewing Berri's outlook as a negative assessment. I think that we all can agree with the points he is trying to make, simply that:

1. OKC will be bad
2. OKC will have cap room next Summer

There's really no debate there.

I don't think Berri's article is good. Hollinger's shorter take was much better. OKC was expected to be a bad team before the trade and they are still projected to be a bad team after the trade. Did we really need an article to reach that brilliant conclusion?

Of course clearing cap space doesn't mean a team will actually make the right decisions with it or even be able to attract the right free agents, but for a team that's not trying to win now I'd obviously rather clear cap space than not clear it.

I could have done without that article. It didn't bring much to the table for me.