PMOTT3 and Chuck Texas Early Off-Season Review: OKC Thunder

[bondom34]

Re: starters at C and SG --- yeah I obviously defer to OKC guys on that (not that we have an early consensus here). I did default to Kanter based on that contract and my belief that "starting" is more important to him than it is Adams. I imagine the closing lineup most nights won't even have a center on the floor unless its against teams like Memphis or SAS where you don't have much choice.

I don't think Kanter will be handed the starting job, but if he can't earn heavy minutes, then that contract is going to start looking pretty ugly.

BTW, really enjoying these write ups. Any chance of a sticky thread with links?

Good idea .

[DanishLakerFan]

I think the Thunder should have went with Oubre, who imo is a far superior talent. Bigger risk, sure, but i dont think Payne has all that high of a ceiling.

Kanter was a fine signing despite the price tag. To be effective I think he needs a rim-protecting stretch-4, which is a rare commodity, but OKC is one of the few teams that have a guy like that (Ibaka).

Kyle Singler? Sure, fine pickup given the price tag and market.

Boring but solid offseason. Grade: B.

[djthesonicsfan]

If you think the team was championship caliber prior to last season's injury avalanche then it's easy to give Presti a decent grade for his off season moves. I think they have every chance of winning it all if they can stay healthy so I gave Presti a B. Wouldn't argue with a B- or a C+ as he set up most of his summer moves last season and all he really did was follow up. Getting into the details...

All his player decisions had some controversy depending on who is expressing the view. Stats from last season's f'ed up mess are almost meaningless in trying to predict this season. Looking forward to seeing how Donovan runs the training camp and seeing the guys play together. Some for the first time. We will know more in a couple of months. Anyway...
- I preferred Anderson to Payne at #14 because I like Anderson as a starting SG and Augustine & Christon did good last season. Others think Payne is going to be real good. Better than Augustine. And Anderson won't be able to shoot the three.
- He either got rid of team cancer (Lamb & Jones) or perpetuated Brooks' mistakes. I'm pulling for those kids to do well this season.
- He kept Kanter, Waiters & Singler... lots of debate on those decisions. Cost, respective abilities and roles have all been debated. As for Kanter's contract specifically, the Blazer management team purposefully screwed him over big time with that huge offer for Kanter. Well done, Vulcans. It will be very interesting to see how the starting lineup and rotations turn out.

[CBA]

So you would then think the OKC roster is below average.

Wow, you really weren't interested in listening...

[bondom34]

So you would then think the OKC roster is below average.

Wow, you really weren't interested in listening...

He said "leaving the roster the same isn't automatically average for me, for some rosters it is for some it isn't". So if you think they had a below avg offseason, you either think:
1. They got worse.
2. They weren't good and failed to improve.

[CBA]

They're playing at the highest level with the other contenders in the West while being on the clock with maybe the best player in the league. Their circumstances are different than, say, Minnesota's circumstances or even Golden State as he explained.

I mean, you're just willfully ignoring what's being said.

[bondom34]

They're playing at the highest level with the other contenders in the West while being on the clock with maybe the best player in the league. Their circumstances are different than, say, Minnesota's circumstances or even Golden State as he explained.

I mean, you're just willfully ignoring what's being said.

No, I'm not. I mean what did you expect, a trade for Marc Gasol? They had literally 3 things to do this summer, they did all 3. They've got confidence going into the season and next summer, and you're willfully ignoring what was said or just not understanding.

[CBA]

I give up; it's like speaking to no one at all.

[bondom34]

So do I.

[BadWolf]

I liked the draft, but there were several choices in that range that were interchangeable.
Kanter is a bad contract, but I guess they had to do it.
I hate Singler's contract, they could just keep PJ to do the same, with some upside, and keep 4 M + salary tax.
Would like to see Waiters gone or that SG spot consolidated.
There's some log jam on the roster that should be cleared up, but I guess depth is always good.

[Kings2013]

It all comes down to Durants health, if he's good the team is back

[TBOKED]

People don't seem to get that regardless of whether he is an ideal fit or not, Kanter had to be signed because if he walks OKC can't resign a replacement player. This is because they are into the luxury tax zone. They could only resign him because he was their own player. They could not sign anyone else that was not already on the team. Whether Kanter is the long term solution at center is almost irrelevant. As long as he retains or increases his value this next year, they could pair him with another asset to acquire another max player or two decent role players. If the goal is keeping the big three, there are limited options for maintaining the rest of the option. You can hit on and get lucky with draft picks. You can flip a player later with a salary that will allow you to fill a starting role like SG for OKC or replace players whose contracts expire that elect not to resign or OKC elects not to resign. See Augustin and Waiters after this season.

[Texas Chuck]

People don't seem to get that regardless of whether he is an ideal fit or not, Kanter had to be signed because if he walks OKC can't resign a replacement player. This is because they are into the luxury tax zone. They could only resign him because he was their own player. They could not sign anyone else that was not already on the team.

I actually think pretty much everyone gets that concept quite clearly.

[pacers33granger]

People don't seem to get that regardless of whether he is an ideal fit or not, Kanter had to be signed because if he walks OKC can't resign a replacement player. This is because they are into the luxury tax zone. They could only resign him because he was their own player. They could not sign anyone else that was not already on the team.

I actually think pretty much everyone gets that concept quite clearly.

Yup and they put themselves in that situation anyways. They traded for a flawed player who was certain to get a giant raise in just a few months. Of course, they were in that situation already with Jackson who they traded for him, but still I wouldn't give them a pass for that.

[bondom34]

People don't seem to get that regardless of whether he is an ideal fit or not, Kanter had to be signed because if he walks OKC can't resign a replacement player. This is because they are into the luxury tax zone. They could only resign him because he was their own player. They could not sign anyone else that was not already on the team.

I actually think pretty much everyone gets that concept quite clearly.

Yup and they put themselves in that situation anyways. They traded for a flawed player who was certain to get a giant raise in just a few months. Of course, they were in that situation already with Jackson who they traded for him, but still I wouldn't give them a pass for that.

So you would have kept Jackson and Perkins? Because those were the options, you either had Kanter at the end of the season or Jackson was gone and you have Perk.

[pacers33granger]

I actually think pretty much everyone gets that concept quite clearly.

Yup and they put themselves in that situation anyways. They traded for a flawed player who was certain to get a giant raise in just a few months. Of course, they were in that situation already with Jackson who they traded for him, but still I wouldn't give them a pass for that.

So you would have kept Jackson and Perkins? Because those were the options, you either had Kanter at the end of the season or Jackson was gone and you have Perk.

Never said that. You guys clearly had to move Jackson (though I believe if you had kept him, he wouldn't have gotten near the contract he got) and Perk was worthless. And I totally understand not wanting to lose an asset, but Presti dealt for Kanter knowing that he either had to let him walk or pay him a ton. So I don't give him a pass for having to match on Kanter to keep him.

And I don't believe that there were no other options for a Jackson trade especially since Utah didn't even take Jackson. Something else with a 3rd team likely could have been worked out, so I don't believe it was strictly either Jackson or Kanter.

[bondom34]

Yup and they put themselves in that situation anyways. They traded for a flawed player who was certain to get a giant raise in just a few months. Of course, they were in that situation already with Jackson who they traded for him, but still I wouldn't give them a pass for that.

So you would have kept Jackson and Perkins? Because those were the options, you either had Kanter at the end of the season or Jackson was gone and you have Perk.

Never said that. You guys clearly had to move Jackson (though I believe if you had kept him, he wouldn't have gotten near the contract he got) and Perk was worthless. And I totally understand not wanting to lose an asset, but Presti dealt for Kanter knowing that he either had to let him walk or pay him a ton. So I don't give him a pass for having to match on Kanter to keep him.

And I don't believe that there were no other options for a Jackson trade especially since Utah didn't even take Jackson. Something else with a 3rd team likely could have been worked out, so I don't believe it was strictly either Jackson or Kanter.

It ultimately required a team either willing to take RJ or a 3 team deal, and the only other reported interested teams for Jackson were NY and BKN. The second choice was Brook Lopez (who was opting out no matter what and getting more than Kanter) and Norris Cole instead of DJ and Singler. The Knicks had nothing and no other team had a need or desire to take Jackson.

[pacers33granger]

So you would have kept Jackson and Perkins? Because those were the options, you either had Kanter at the end of the season or Jackson was gone and you have Perk.

Never said that. You guys clearly had to move Jackson (though I believe if you had kept him, he wouldn't have gotten near the contract he got) and Perk was worthless. And I totally understand not wanting to lose an asset, but Presti dealt for Kanter knowing that he either had to let him walk or pay him a ton. So I don't give him a pass for having to match on Kanter to keep him.

And I don't believe that there were no other options for a Jackson trade especially since Utah didn't even take Jackson. Something else with a 3rd team likely could have been worked out, so I don't believe it was strictly either Jackson or Kanter.

It ultimately required a team either willing to take RJ or a 3 team deal, and the only other reported interested teams for Jackson were NY and BKN. The second choice was Brook Lopez (who was opting out no matter what and getting more than Kanter) and Norris Cole instead of DJ and Singler. The Knicks had nothing and no other team had a need or desire to take Jackson.

So you're saying that no one else would have taken the package the Jazz did as a third team? I know that few teams wanted Jackson, but the team that traded Kanter didn't even take him. So I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at there. I can understand if the third team wasn't offering a young talented big, but I can imagine that several other teams would have jumped in and traded a useful player for Perk/1st/Euro prospect and dumping a minor bad contract.

[bondom34]

Never said that. You guys clearly had to move Jackson (though I believe if you had kept him, he wouldn't have gotten near the contract he got) and Perk was worthless. And I totally understand not wanting to lose an asset, but Presti dealt for Kanter knowing that he either had to let him walk or pay him a ton. So I don't give him a pass for having to match on Kanter to keep him.

And I don't believe that there were no other options for a Jackson trade especially since Utah didn't even take Jackson. Something else with a 3rd team likely could have been worked out, so I don't believe it was strictly either Jackson or Kanter.

It ultimately required a team either willing to take RJ or a 3 team deal, and the only other reported interested teams for Jackson were NY and BKN. The second choice was Brook Lopez (who was opting out no matter what and getting more than Kanter) and Norris Cole instead of DJ and Singler. The Knicks had nothing and no other team had a need or desire to take Jackson.

So you're saying that no one else would have taken the package the Jazz did as a third team? I know that few teams wanted Jackson, but the team that traded Kanter didn't even take him. So I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at there. I can understand if the third team wasn't offering a young talented big, but I can imagine that several other teams would have jumped in and traded a useful player for Perk/1st/Euro prospect and dumping a minor bad contract.

That's basically what I'm saying yeah, because that was what they needed in return. The market was limited to teams with a need for a PG and/or teams who could send back a big, because they were moving Perk and needed an upgrade badly.

[giberish]

Brandon Wright was available midseason for a spare 1st. He's an offensive big that's way better on D than Kanter, and who could have been resigned for far less than Kanter.

Add in the extra 1st OKC spent on Waiters and they could have gotten Mozgov (granted, an overpay in terms of trade assets but at least he's good, unlike Kanter.