Trade Targets, Part Deux

[enetric]

I think King ultimately caves in and sends ATL Brooks, Hump, 1st rounder, and either Bogdanovic or another 1st rounder. I'm cool with that.

If it actually gets it done...gets Ferry to eat Hump I am fine with it to. But can we get it done by 10 AM so Josh Smith can wake Dwight up with a text that says,

"So? You going to call your agent or hold a press conference to try and get your ass traded to Bklyn today? I have a jersey fitting +media meet and greet at noon and the Deron is taking me to Junior's right after that. Later dog!"

[enetric]

I think the negative effects of the Harden trade are going to be seriously apparent in the playoffs this year for OKC. The only reason OKC hasn't skipped a beat this regular season is because Durant kicked his game up into ridiculous, all-time great territory. He did that last playoffs too, and they still wouldn't have gotten past any of the teams they faced without Harden. Martin sure as hell doesn't replicate what Harden does, and Westbrook doesn't have enough IQ to take over the facilitator role that Harden manned.

So yeah, I agree, lucking out with Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka in 3 consecutive drafts after 3 years of sucking isn't great GMing. Trying to save money by trading Harden over Westbrook when Harden is a better player isn't great GMing. Durant developing into a bona fide superstar who is playing at a historic level right now isn't great GMing.

They still don't have a competent backup PG. Westbrook's backups for the last 2-3 years have ranged from Maynor to Fisher to Jackson. They still have Perkins, even though he's useless. And outside of Martin and Collison...who exactly is a productive player off their bench?

IMO, Presti is a decent GM who had a good teacher who gets overrated because Kevin Durant is **** ing awesome.

That was perfectly said. Enetric Gold Star for that one.

[enetric]

I'm sorry, but this whole "lucking out in the draft" is so **** asinine I don't even know where to begin. It's called good scouting, damn. And lucking out with Ibaka? Most ridiculous statement ever.

So yeah, I agree, lucking out with Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka in 3 consecutive drafts after 3 years of sucking isn't great GMing.

Come on, guy, you know what this makes you look like.

Ibaka was a great pick. But Harden was a terrible trade and he is right that the entire reason that team is so special is because Portland took the wrong guy.


Presti is very good. But you giving him all the credit for scouting? Like there is no one doing the scouting? No luck involved here?

Come on now JG.

[therealbig3]

Hmmm, ok, fair enough, I might be underrating what Presti has done...but it seems like the only obviously good things he's done have been in the scouting/drafting department, which is great...but isn't Billy King known for that too? GMs mainly define themselves through how they improve their team through trades and signings, and in terms of trades and off-season moves, dating back to the Green for Perkins trade, he hasn't done anything that great imo.

A team like the Spurs with Buford are different imo, because they're consistently finding guys late in the 1st round, or 2nd round, who turn into studs, or guys off the garbage heap that end up producing in a big way for them. OKC was bad for a while, and got a bunch of high lottery picks. Now, picking Westbrook and Harden out of those picks, and then finding Ibaka later in the draft was smart scouting, but you are picking among some obviously talented players, and the chances you pick a player that ends up being pretty good are much higher with high lottery picks than with late picks like the Spurs have had. They found Parker and Ginobili years AFTER they drafted Duncan with the #1 overall pick and AFTER they were already a great team, meaning they found them late in the draft.

A lot of this is just the fact that Presti doesn't exactly have a long tenure as a GM. He doesn't have a long track record. For me to include him with Buford, and Morey, and West, I have to see more from him, mainly what kind of moves he makes to improve the Thunder from here on out, and how he drafts now that he has a great team and will end up with picks only in the high 20s for the next 5+ years. I want to see how many diamonds in the rough he can find with late picks now.

[Jersey Generals]

I'm fairly certain a GM both hire scouts, is briefed by what each scout accumulates, and then makes the final call on who to draft. So...yeah, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't give someone credit where credit is due. Everyone gets on gms for making bad picks, why can't people give credit for making good picks? Seriously. It's asinine reasoning to chalk it all up to luck.

[therealbig3]

I'm fairly certain a GM both hire scouts, is briefed by what each scout accumulates, and then makes the final call on who to draft. So...yeah, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't give someone credit where credit is due. Everyone gets on gms for making bad picks, why can't people give credit for making good picks? Seriously. It's asinine reasoning to chalk it all up to luck.

They hire coaches too, and his last 2 coaches have been PJ Carlesimo and Scott Brooks, who are the definitions of "mediocre at best".

[enetric]

It doesn't take a great scout to see that Durant is amazing, he was the consensus top 2 pick that year, and Presti picked 2nd. Nothing genius going on there. And getting Durant is the biggest reason why the Thunder are so good, because Presti was lucky that Portland repeated the 1984 draft.

Portland didn't repeat anything. Oden was the number one pick that year, to say otherwise is revisionist history.

Westbrook and Harden were obviously great picks that upgraded them to contender status, but it was lucky that they took a little bit of time to develop, like Durant, which allowed OKC to tank some more and stock up on talent.

Great picks, but luck has nothing to do with the picks themselves here. It's good scouting, that's it. Luck has to do with the placement of the picks, sure, but not the picks themselves. It's the reason why the Kings and Wizards are absolutely bottom feeders: they can't draft.

And Ibaka could have easily been a super raw freak athlete that never translated to the NBA. He was a late 1st round pick, those become busts all the time.

But...Ibaka isn't a bust. When does one stop saying "he got lucky" and start saying, "damn, that's good scouting"?

You make it sound like Presti hasn't done any questionable moves and that his track record is perfect, when I could just point to the Harden trade and Harden's subsequent superstardom when given the opportunity. I think Presti made the clearly wrong choice there, by picking not only Westbrook over Harden, but Ibaka too, and I was vocal about that at the time of the trade, this isn't hindsight speaking.

I'm not making it sound like that at all. He has flaws. Just like RC Buford, just like Darryl Morey, just like Jerry West, just like Pat Riley, just like all of the greats. But to say that he isn't in the top 5 isn't being extremely disingenuous.

EDIT: JG, I did say that Presti was a good GM, and a ton of luck is involved in the building of any great team, and I would obviously take him in a heartbeat over Billy King. I just don't think he's an amazing GM with a special eye for talent. Like I said, the main reason why the Thunder are so good right now is because he got a Larry Bird/Dirk Nowitzki/Ray Allen hybrid gift-wrapped to him, and he accepted.

But you're basically taking every gming skill out of gming and coining it up to luck. If we went with you're way of thinking, no one would be a good gm. Pat Riley wouldn't be a good gm for picking Dwyane Wade, the hockey guy for taking Dwight over Okafor, etc.

JG....

So if Beal works out and thanks to losing the Cavs add one more major all star type...and the Cavs are special are the suddenly geniuses at work over there?

Lets talk trades. What trades has he made that you like?

What youy respect is the great job drafting they have done on his watch. And so we all should. If anything it validates why draft picks shouldnt be treated like they are meaningless.

But the reality is...luck has a huge part in all of these things. The Spurs? Sure Parker and Ginobli were great finds. But the wheels that set that team in motion was David Robinson missing almost a full season of his career and a quality playoff team lands Tim Duncan.

People often will dismiss a great coach like Phil Jackson with the nonsense that he coached great players. But a GM who said...Yes, I will draft that best player available after my team won 20 games is always a genius.

I have no idea who the scouts are for the Thunder. But perhaps there is someone else over there that deserves a big part of the credit if the reason for heaping so much praise on Presti are the great picks they made when the team was abysmal.

[enetric]

I'm fairly certain a GM both hire scouts, is briefed by what each scout accumulates, and then makes the final call on who to draft. So...yeah, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't give someone credit where credit is due. Everyone gets on gms for making bad picks, why can't people give credit for making good picks? Seriously. It's asinine reasoning to chalk it all up to luck.

Durant was LUCK. And Durant is 90% of their success.

And you didnt address the trades and signings or lack their of.

[enetric]

I'm fairly certain a GM both hire scouts, is briefed by what each scout accumulates, and then makes the final call on who to draft. So...yeah, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't give someone credit where credit is due. Everyone gets on gms for making bad picks, why can't people give credit for making good picks? Seriously. It's asinine reasoning to chalk it all up to luck.

They hire coaches too, and his last 2 coaches have been PJ Carlesimo and Scott Brooks, who are the definitions of "mediocre at best".

I think Scott Brooks is awful.

[Jersey Generals]

TRB3, I'll be upfront in what I view as Presti's misses:

1) Taking Jeff Green. It's hard to quantify what he should have done, since it would lose Harden and Westbrook for him, but Noah probably should have been taken here.
2) Taking Aldrich. The trade itself to get that pick was brilliant, but Aldrich was a mistake that was trying to rectify the mistake in not taking Noah. Who should he have drafted here? Maybe Larry Sanders, I guess.
3) Trading Bledsoe. Bledsoe would have been a dynamite backup, but perhaps too similar to Westbrook for his tastes, so I can see the reasoning behind it. Either way, they should have kept him.
4) Trading Harden. Just trading him in general. I would need more information to decipher how much pressure he was feeling from the owners in regards to lux tax, but either way, should have worked something out for him.

I view the Perkins trade as neutral since I think Jeff Green sucks and his contract is terrible; likewise, Perkins sucks and his contract is horrible.

But he has some great moves in there: the aforementioned trade that got him the pick to take Aldrich; the Kurt Thomas fleecings (with the Suns and then the Spurs); the Thabo trade for a late first; Collison's contract; drafting Ibaka. Just some real great stuff that makes me have confidence in his abilities.

[Jersey Generals]

They hire coaches too, and his last 2 coaches have been PJ Carlesimo and Scott Brooks, who are the definitions of "mediocre at best".

Not for nothing, but I think there really aren't very many great coaches out there. I mean, think about it, who are the Nets looking at to coach the team during the summer?

[therealbig3]

They hire coaches too, and his last 2 coaches have been PJ Carlesimo and Scott Brooks, who are the definitions of "mediocre at best".

Not for nothing, but I think there really aren't very many great coaches out there. I mean, think about it, who are the Nets looking at to coach the team during the summer?

I agree, there's not that many "great" coaches out there (I would say Pop and Thibs are great...everyone else, even Rivers, have some major flaws)...but there are some above average coaches that are definitely better than Scott Brooks:

-JVG...offensively, not very good, but excellent at coaching defense and getting players to commit on that side of the ball (when McGrady was in Houston, I honestly thought he should have gotten some All-D consideration his first couple of years, because JVG actually got him to commit to defense and use his insane physical attributes to his advantage), and he holds players accountable...and I also like the fact that he subscribes to stats to help guide him in his decision-making, I think that's what everyone will be doing at some point

-SVG...I have a lot of respect for him, tbh...the only negative that seems to come up with him is how he handles/interacts with players, but Durant is one of the most coachable superstars in the game, and I think if Durant is on board, Westbrook would be too...his actual coaching is excellent imo.

-Phil Jackson...he's a HOF coach, arguably the GOAT, and since he loves to coach super talented teams that have almost arrived and just need a steady, calming presence on the sidelines, I actually think OKC would be a perfect fit for him.

-Jerry Sloan...excellent offensive coach, and he could probably reign in Westbrook and make him a smarter player.


There's a few I'm missing, but off the top of my head, those 4 are on our coaching list, and I think they would be great for OKC as well. And they're all far better than Scott Brooks, imo.

[enetric]

TRB3, I'll be upfront in what I view as Presti's misses:

1) Taking Jeff Green. It's hard to quantify what he should have done, since it would lose Harden and Westbrook for him, but Noah probably should have been taken here.
2) Taking Aldrich. The trade itself to get that pick was brilliant, but Aldrich was a mistake that was trying to rectify the mistake in not taking Noah. Who should he have drafted here? Maybe Larry Sanders, I guess.
3) Trading Bledsoe. Bledsoe would have been a dynamite backup, but perhaps too similar to Westbrook for his tastes, so I can see the reasoning behind it. Either way, they should have kept him.
4) Trading Harden. Just trading him in general. I would need more information to decipher how much pressure he was feeling from the owners in regards to lux tax, but either way, should have worked something out for him.

I view the Perkins trade as neutral since I think Jeff Green sucks and his contract is terrible; likewise, Perkins sucks and his contract is horrible.

But he has some great moves in there: the aforementioned trade that got him the pick to take Aldrich; the Kurt Thomas fleecings (with the Suns and then the Spurs); the Thabo trade for a late first; Collison's contract; drafting Ibaka. Just some real great stuff that makes me have confidence in his abilities.

I think that was all really honest of you. But now listen to how he phrased it. He said the guy was good. What was questioned by both of us is this anointing of him as special...as this top 3 genius. Those are some pretty hefty misses you came up with. Average the good moves with the bad...and you get a guy who is good. Not some sort of league genius. And then realize...no Durant with the 2nd overall pick...there is nothing to talk about here.

Look...I get why you respect him so. I made the Phil Jackson point. To me I see a coach that has made everyone he ever coached better. In every situation the team got better the star, the role guys...the defense...all better. Yet someone knocks him with sure he won look who he coached.

For me I can see tons of tangible first hand observations that I can attribute to HIS coaching. Things I have seen watching the man for years...to say...Wow...best I have ever seen.

But with a GM its very hard to do...especially if its mostly a support of the draft alone. His trades, his signings his coaches leave something to be desired so graded altogether was it really unfair to say that perhaps he isnt this genius rocket scientist some make him out to be?

Now if he is your Uncle....I formally apologize..lol.

[therealbig3]

@HowardBeckNYT Received an emphatic denial that Nets have agreed to any Humphries/Gordon deal. They don't want Gordon, period.

Well, OK then.

ugh, I feel like that move can help us out big time. I guess it's Smoove or nothing.

Funny. And I feel that on the court that move would have as much impact as slicing through a rhino's ass with a plastic spoon.

I havent been this indifferent about acquiring a player on this board since we went round and round about Ron Mercer.

I really want to see Mirza play more, so I think any Humphries trade for an equally valuable asset next year who plays a different position is addition by subtraction. If the player we trade for gives us any sort of contribution, that's just gravy.

[PetroNet]

I think King ultimately caves in and sends ATL Brooks, Hump, 1st rounder, and either Bogdanovic or another 1st rounder. I'm cool with that.

i do too, i just dont think that deal gets it done.

REALLY hope we dont do something STUPID. like give that same package you just mentioned for ilyasova

[PetroNet]

I'm sorry, but this whole "lucking out in the draft" is so **** asinine I don't even know where to begin. It's called good scouting, damn. And lucking out with Ibaka? Most ridiculous statement ever.

So yeah, I agree, lucking out with Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka in 3 consecutive drafts after 3 years of sucking isn't great GMing.

Come on, guy, you know what this makes you look like.

Ibaka was a great pick. But Harden was a terrible trade and he is right that the entire reason that team is so special is because Portland took the wrong guy.


Presti is very good. But you giving him all the credit for scouting? Like there is no one doing the scouting? No luck involved here?

Come on now JG.

exactly, how about just being lucky enought to have a lottery pick in the draft where Durant is available?

We won the lottery and the best 2 players were marcus fizer and kenyon martin. OKC gets the #2 pick and they get durant. your telling me that isnt luck? it certainly isnt scouting.

[N Ireland Nets]

[
exactly, how about just being lucky enought to have a lottery pick in the draft where Durant is available?

We won the lottery and the best 2 players were marcus fizer and kenyon martin. OKC gets the #2 pick and they get durant. your telling me that isnt luck? it certainly isnt scouting.

Drafting Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka isn't luck at all. I could understand if Durant was the only good player he drafted but he found superstars when others didn't see it.

It's tremendous scouting and drafting, nothing to do with luck in my eyes.

[DWILLoftheGODZ]

We are going to get Josh Smith. Atlanta is trying to get us to blink and throw in more assets.

BK has alot of experience of dealing with these deadline trades from the Dwightmare and the Melodrama. He wont budge. Ferry should already know this since he couldnt get Brooks in the JJ trade.

If the Bucks want him I think he is going to the Bucks.

Let me ask you one thing...

Are you ready to admit that Hump is not a desirable piece at least? That clearly he is viewed by the Hawks as a penalty and that our offer would be greatly improved in their eyes to take back anyone on an expiring contract NOT to have his contract for next season?

Or do you think that the entire sports media, all the GM's around the league and every poster here are still wrong and that Ferry wants to do the Humpty dance?

If it comes down to it, and it seems like it is, Atlanta will take Hump if we cant find a 3rd team. We probably have to add a protected pick.

I dont see the Bucks giving up one of their young players for Smith so at this point we are only bidding against ourselves.

The Suns are a bigger concern. They can offer draft picks and Gortat. But look at Gortat who is a 11/8.5 and Hump can do that.

[NetSymptom]

Hope someone can answer this for me:

How soon, if the Hawks acquire Humphries, could they turn around and trade him?

Could they trade him to a team in the offseason? I'm just thinking in terms of a Mavericks situation where they miss out on all the stars, and want a bunch of 1 year deals to keep flexibility for next year.

[PetroNet]

[
exactly, how about just being lucky enought to have a lottery pick in the draft where Durant is available?

We won the lottery and the best 2 players were marcus fizer and kenyon martin. OKC gets the #2 pick and they get durant. your telling me that isnt luck? it certainly isnt scouting.

Drafting Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka isn't luck at all. I could understand if Durant was the only good player he drafted but he found superstars when others didn't see it.

It's tremendous scouting and drafting, nothing to do with luck in my eyes.

well, lets say they dont have durant... westbrook/harden/ibaka is like a 6-8 seed in the west.

also, lets not make it out like harden was some great late find in the 20's. he was the obvious pick there. and even if the DONT take harden, again they were lucky enough that their lottery pick was in a loaded draft. i mean if they dont get hard its what, steph curry, rubio, derozan, evans, holliday. they also got lucky that harden wasnt taken 2nd, leaving them to take a bust in thabeet.

making a top 3 pick and getting a stud when he is CLEARLY the guy everyone on the planet would take in that spot isnt some great scouting.

ill give you westbrook, and ibaka. but those guys arent huge star players. without durant that team is like what the rockets are right now.