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

[bondom34]

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.

And who's taking Perkins if they get Wright?

[Trader_Joe]

[quote="bondom34"][quote="pacers33granger"][quote="Chuck Texas"][quote="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. [/quote]

I actually think pretty much everyone gets that concept quite clearly.[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Do you think RJ was gone because he would have taken the QO and left in a year ir because OKC wouldn't have matched?

[TBOKED]

He would have taken QO and left because he not only wanted ridiculous money, but wanted to be a starter.

[Trader_Joe]

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.

HW specifically said they have a great roster but felt they needed to do more and didn't.
Not sure how that equates to him thinking they are below average.

[Trader_Joe]

He would have taken QO and left because he not only wanted ridiculous money, but wanted to be a starter.

A possibility but still speculative. He might have gotten a max offer and felt OKC would not have matched or taken it for fear of losing value as a continued back up. At least he got tonstart with the RW injury and raise his value last year.

[bondom34]

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.

HW specifically said they have a great roster but felt they needed to do more and didn't.
Not sure how that equates to him thinking they are below average.

When I posed the question, that's not at all what he said. I wrote above what he said, which isn't what you said.

[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.

Do you think RJ was gone because he would have taken the QO and left in a year ir because OKC wouldn't have matched?

Yep, he wanted out.

[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.

And who's taking Perkins if they get Wright?

Boston, most likely. I don't see them having as issue taking back Perkins as EC filler.

And if you're criteria is just 'C or PF/C available for EC filler and if necessary a late 1st, while being better then Perkins or Kanter' there were several other plausible options:

Jason Thompson, David Lee (maybe), Faried (maybe), Frye, O'Quinn, Biyombo, Olynik (maybe), Hibbert, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee (maybe), Tyler Zellar, Cody Zellar (maybe), probably more as well.

OKC had options, they chose Kanter despite his extreme defensive problems being readily known, gambling that they could fix them.

[bondom34]

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.

And who's taking Perkins if they get Wright?

Boston, most likely. I don't see them having as issue taking back Perkins as EC filler.

And if you're criteria is just 'C or PF/C available for EC filler and if necessary a late 1st, while being better then Perkins or Kanter' there were several other plausible options:

Jason Thompson, David Lee (maybe), Faried (maybe), Frye, O'Quinn, Biyombo, Olynik (maybe), Hibbert, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee (maybe), Tyler Zellar, Cody Zellar (maybe), probably more as well.

OKC had options, they chose Kanter despite his extreme defensive problems being readily known, gambling that they could fix them.

I think you're both overrating the market for Perkins and underrating Kanter.

It took Perk and a first to take back Novak, and Kanter is better than half the guys you listed. Plus again, most of those teams wouldn't have taken Perk. If you posted Perk and a first for Zeller Boston in no way takes that.

[TBOKED]

[quote="giberish"][quote="bondom34"][quote="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.

And who's taking Perkins if they get Wright?[/quote]

Boston, most likely. I don't see them having as issue taking back Perkins as EC filler.

And if you're criteria is just 'C or PF/C available for EC filler and if necessary a late 1st, while being better then Perkins or Kanter' there were several other plausible options:

Jason Thompson, David Lee (maybe), Faried (maybe), Frye, O'Quinn, Biyombo, Olynik (maybe), Hibbert, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee (maybe), Tyler Zellar, Cody Zellar (maybe), probably more as well.

OKC had options, they chose Kanter despite his extreme defensive problems being readily known, gambling that they could fix them.[/quote]
I think you're both overrating the market for Perkins and underrating Kanter.

It took Perk and a first to take back Novak, and Kanter is better than half the guys you listed. Plus again, most of those teams wouldn't have taken Perk. If you posted Perk and a first for Zeller Boston in no way takes that.[/quote]

This.

Preach it.

[Trader_Joe]

What core returned? Durant hasn't played a game with Kanter, or Singler, or DJ, and barely Waiters or Morrow. They have zero idea as to what the lineup is and no stability. Most title teams have some stability. To me a C is if you came in and left the offseason in the same shape.

Leaving the roster the same isn't automatically average for me. For some rosters it is a great move, and for others it is a terrible move, and for others its bleh.

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

I consider the starting unit to be top 5. Augustin an above average backup point plus Payne. Morrow an above average backup 2, Singler is meh. McGary and whichever of Adams/Kanter is backup to me is an above average combo. At this point I don't see a glaring hole in the rotation.

I'm not sure if you didn't quiote this whole post or he added it later but he calls the roster great.

[giberish]

And who's taking Perkins if they get Wright?

Boston, most likely. I don't see them having as issue taking back Perkins as EC filler.

And if you're criteria is just 'C or PF/C available for EC filler and if necessary a late 1st, while being better then Perkins or Kanter' there were several other plausible options:

Jason Thompson, David Lee (maybe), Faried (maybe), Frye, O'Quinn, Biyombo, Olynik (maybe), Hibbert, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee (maybe), Tyler Zellar, Cody Zellar (maybe), probably more as well.

OKC had options, they chose Kanter despite his extreme defensive problems being readily known, gambling that they could fix them.

I think you're both overrating the market for Perkins and underrating Kanter.

It took Perk and a first to take back Novak, and Kanter is better than half the guys you listed. Plus again, most of those teams wouldn't have taken Perk. If you posted Perk and a first for Zeller Boston in no way takes that.

IMO Kanter is distinctly worse than all of them, though obviously OKC felt differently or they wouldn't have traded for him. The point is that they had many options and chose Kanter, it wasn't a Kanter or no one scenario.

Also - Perkins involvement would depend on whether salary matching was needed. To get a cheap, still on rookie contract deal like Zeller, OKC could match salaries without Perkins (he'd just get bumped down the depth chart).

[MoneyTalks41890]

Boston, most likely. I don't see them having as issue taking back Perkins as EC filler.

And if you're criteria is just 'C or PF/C available for EC filler and if necessary a late 1st, while being better then Perkins or Kanter' there were several other plausible options:

Jason Thompson, David Lee (maybe), Faried (maybe), Frye, O'Quinn, Biyombo, Olynik (maybe), Hibbert, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee (maybe), Tyler Zellar, Cody Zellar (maybe), probably more as well.

OKC had options, they chose Kanter despite his extreme defensive problems being readily known, gambling that they could fix them.

I think you're both overrating the market for Perkins and underrating Kanter.

It took Perk and a first to take back Novak, and Kanter is better than half the guys you listed. Plus again, most of those teams wouldn't have taken Perk. If you posted Perk and a first for Zeller Boston in no way takes that.

IMO Kanter is distinctly worse than all of them, though obviously OKC felt differently or they wouldn't have traded for him. The point is that they had many options and chose Kanter, it wasn't a Kanter or no one scenario.

Also - Perkins involvement would depend on whether salary matching was needed. To get a cheap, still on rookie contract deal like Zeller, OKC could match salaries without Perkins (he'd just get bumped down the depth chart).

The options were Lopez and Kanter.

[bondom34]

Boston, most likely. I don't see them having as issue taking back Perkins as EC filler.

And if you're criteria is just 'C or PF/C available for EC filler and if necessary a late 1st, while being better then Perkins or Kanter' there were several other plausible options:

Jason Thompson, David Lee (maybe), Faried (maybe), Frye, O'Quinn, Biyombo, Olynik (maybe), Hibbert, Miles Plumlee, Mason Plumlee (maybe), Tyler Zellar, Cody Zellar (maybe), probably more as well.

OKC had options, they chose Kanter despite his extreme defensive problems being readily known, gambling that they could fix them.

I think you're both overrating the market for Perkins and underrating Kanter.

It took Perk and a first to take back Novak, and Kanter is better than half the guys you listed. Plus again, most of those teams wouldn't have taken Perk. If you posted Perk and a first for Zeller Boston in no way takes that.

IMO Kanter is distinctly worse than all of them, though obviously OKC felt differently or they wouldn't have traded for him. The point is that they had many options and chose Kanter, it wasn't a Kanter or no one scenario.

Also - Perkins involvement would depend on whether salary matching was needed. To get a cheap, still on rookie contract deal like Zeller, OKC could match salaries without Perkins (he'd just get bumped down the depth chart).

See moneytalks reply. That's the choice, and if its Lopez you're paying him more and not getting Augustin/Singler. And again, you needed teams interested.

I can say every team has a terrible offseason b/c they didn't do a deal I think they should, but it needs 2 teams to work. That's how trades work.

[bondom34]

Leaving the roster the same isn't automatically average for me. For some rosters it is a great move, and for others it is a terrible move, and for others its bleh.

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

I consider the starting unit to be top 5. Augustin an above average backup point plus Payne. Morrow an above average backup 2, Singler is meh. McGary and whichever of Adams/Kanter is backup to me is an above average combo. At this point I don't see a glaring hole in the rotation.

I'm not sure if you didn't quiote this whole post or he added it later but he calls the roster great.

Just from that post alone it didn't seem that way, though I must have missed something. My bad.

[HartfordWhalers]

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

I consider the starting unit to be top 5. Augustin an above average backup point plus Payne. Morrow an above average backup 2, Singler is meh. McGary and whichever of Adams/Kanter is backup to me is an above average combo. At this point I don't see a glaring hole in the rotation.

I'm not sure if you didn't quiote this whole post or he added it later but he calls the roster great.

Just from that post alone it didn't seem that way, though I must have missed something. My bad.

Here was my whole post:

What core returned? Durant hasn't played a game with Kanter, or Singler, or DJ, and barely Waiters or Morrow. They have zero idea as to what the lineup is and no stability. Most title teams have some stability. To me a C is if you came in and left the offseason in the same shape.

Leaving the roster the same isn't automatically average for me. For some rosters it is a great move, and for others it is a terrible move, and for others its bleh.

I get if your feeling is that this roster is pretty set and just didn't play together to prove it and gets a B (or even A). My feeling is the roster is great but still needs more, so staying the same is worse than average.

This whole thread was a fiasco. But i sure as hell didn't say OKC wasn't a great roster on average, and I have no idea how anyone could possibly have taken that away ever.

But I'm more than done with this, as suggesting that leaving a Morrow/Waiters/Robertson starter on a team with championship aspirations and short contracts is a blunder is apparently too bizarre to say.

[bondom34]

I'm not sure if you didn't quiote this whole post or he added it later but he calls the roster great.

Just from that post alone it didn't seem that way, though I must have missed something. My bad.

Here was my whole post:

What core returned? Durant hasn't played a game with Kanter, or Singler, or DJ, and barely Waiters or Morrow. They have zero idea as to what the lineup is and no stability. Most title teams have some stability. To me a C is if you came in and left the offseason in the same shape.

Leaving the roster the same isn't automatically average for me. For some rosters it is a great move, and for others it is a terrible move, and for others its bleh.

I get if your feeling is that this roster is pretty set and just didn't play together to prove it and gets a B (or even A). My feeling is the roster is great but still needs more, so staying the same is worse than average.

This whole thread was a fiasco. But i sure as hell didn't say OKC wasn't a great roster on average, and I have no idea how anyone could possibly have taken that away ever.

But I'm more than done with this, as suggesting that leaving a Morrow/Waiters/Robertson starter on a team with championship aspirations and short contracts is a blunder is apparently too much to say.

Ever realize you're a dummy way after the fact? How I feel now, and I'll see myself out.

[giberish]

I think you're both overrating the market for Perkins and underrating Kanter.

It took Perk and a first to take back Novak, and Kanter is better than half the guys you listed. Plus again, most of those teams wouldn't have taken Perk. If you posted Perk and a first for Zeller Boston in no way takes that.

IMO Kanter is distinctly worse than all of them, though obviously OKC felt differently or they wouldn't have traded for him. The point is that they had many options and chose Kanter, it wasn't a Kanter or no one scenario.

Also - Perkins involvement would depend on whether salary matching was needed. To get a cheap, still on rookie contract deal like Zeller, OKC could match salaries without Perkins (he'd just get bumped down the depth chart).

The options were Lopez and Kanter.

The options OKC was willing to consider were Lopez and Kanter. That's very different from those being the only two possible options. OKC appeared to put scoring above all else in their consideration which was not how I would have made decisions.

[bondom34]

IMO Kanter is distinctly worse than all of them, though obviously OKC felt differently or they wouldn't have traded for him. The point is that they had many options and chose Kanter, it wasn't a Kanter or no one scenario.

Also - Perkins involvement would depend on whether salary matching was needed. To get a cheap, still on rookie contract deal like Zeller, OKC could match salaries without Perkins (he'd just get bumped down the depth chart).

The options were Lopez and Kanter.

The options OKC was willing to consider were Lopez and Kanter. That's very different from those being the only two possible options. OKC appeared to put scoring above all else in their consideration which was not how I would have made decisions.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion given the assets used and what teams could use them. Yeah they wanted an upgrade on offense but not putting scoring above everything. The only other team that was pretty much confirmed interested in RJ was NY. And they had nothing to give.

[giberish]

The options were Lopez and Kanter.

The options OKC was willing to consider were Lopez and Kanter. That's very different from those being the only two possible options. OKC appeared to put scoring above all else in their consideration which was not how I would have made decisions.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion given the assets used and what teams could use them. Yeah they wanted an upgrade on offense but not putting scoring above everything. The only other team that was pretty much confirmed interested in RJ was NY. And they had nothing to give.

RJ is irrelevant. He wasn't traded for Kanter. I don't know why you bring him up. He was dealt for DJ and Singler (given his low midseason value a reasonable deal).

That there was no one but Kanter or Lopez available for a 1st (with Perkins as EC filler for more expensive options) isn't reasonable though. While I can't say for certain exactly which extra bigs were options there were enough teams looking for an extra pick - especially teams that weren't in the playoffs - that OKC surely had many possible options. They just chose Kanter (with Lopez as a 2nd choice) from among their options.