Billy Donovan Early Season Review

[Bravenewworld]

Nothing is/was unrealistic that was posted. I could easily see Presti dump kanter on a team that strikes out on free agents and get back a much better fitting player.

Yah, i guess Presti is known for giving big contracts and then trading that player. Even when a players defense is not up to snuff, we never see Presti hold on to that player in hopes they develop or fit within the system, do we?

If you "Easily see presti" doing this, fine, but i just dont know what team you're watching because this is counter to everything hes done. The guy is coming from a franchise thats success is centered around the consistency of roster over single player abilities. And IMO, we've seen him do exactly that with this OKC roster.

But fine, lets assume he would.
If youre suggesting that Kanters defense is that big of a problem, then other people see this as well right? If you're undervaluing this player (which i think you are), then what makes you assume others are not as well? Especially if you're assuming that youre being objective with your evaluation.

Its just seems ilke a typical trade suggestion case that we are all guilty of, including myself. Which is undervaluing their player, overvaluing ours, addressing our situation, ignoring theirs. Which i think is highlighted perfectly with Zaza and Chandler. Where both players were brought in because of a need for low post defense, a problem that would occur again if they traded one for Kanter.... why would they do that when offense is also not an issue? Why would they be willing to create a problem for themselves, to solve a problem for us?

Dallas picked up Zaza solely because they needed some kind of low post defense. Why would they give us him for Kanter?

Asik has been horrible for the past 3 or 4 years, i dont know why you'd want to trade Kanter for him when we could probably trade a bag of Doritos for him. But hey, im willing to bet we could get Asik for Kanter. To make it worth it we would need Evans with him, which i dont think would happen, but hey i guess it could happen.

Chandler... like i said, if it was 5 years ago i'd be right along side you. With this chandler we just have no idea what we will get and we have no idea if he can stay healthy.

[Andre Roberstan]

sees new posts in BD thread

bondom and BNW argument

[bondom34]

Nothing is/was unrealistic that was posted. I could easily see Presti dump kanter on a team that strikes out on free agents and get back a much better fitting player.

Yah, i guess Presti is known for giving big contracts and then trading that player. Even when a players defense is not up to snuff, we never see Presti hold on to that player in hopes they develop or fit within the system, do we?

If you "Easily see presti" doing this, fine, but i just dont know what team you're watching because this is counter to everything hes done. The guy is coming from a franchise thats success is centered around the consistency of roster over single player abilities. And IMO, we've seen him do exactly that with this OKC roster.

But fine, lets assume he would.
If youre suggesting that Kanters defense is that big of a problem, then other people see this as well right? If you're undervaluing this player (which i think you are), then what makes you assume others are not as well? Especially if you're assuming that youre being objective with your evaluation.

Its just seems ilke a typical trade suggestion case that we are all guilty of, including myself. Which is undervaluing their player, overvaluing ours, addressing our situation, ignoring theirs. Which i think is highlighted perfectly with Zaza and Chandler. Where both players were brought in because of a need for low post defense, a problem that would occur again if they traded one for Kanter.... why would they do that when offense is also not an issue? Why would they be willing to create a problem for themselves, to solve a problem for us?

Dallas picked up Zaza solely because they needed some kind of low post defense. Why would they give us him for Kanter?

Asik has been horrible for the past 3 or 4 years, i dont know why you'd want to trade Kanter for him when we could probably trade a bag of Doritos for him. But hey, im willing to bet we could get Asik for Kanter. To make it worth it we would need Evans with him, which i dont think would happen, but hey i guess it could happen.

Chandler... like i said, if it was 5 years ago i'd be right along side you. With this chandler we just have no idea what we will get and we have no idea if he can stay healthy.

The main reason I see it likely is because Adams is due a contract in 2 years. So then you have a max salary backup big man playing 20 mpg and still no solid 2 way wing on the roster. You can downgrade Kanter and use that money so much more wisely. I'd think Presti realizes that and that he sees the one big issue still on the team is the SG/SF rotation.

[Bravenewworld]

The main reason I see it likely is because Adams is due a contract in 2 years. So then you have a max salary backup big man playing 20 mpg and still no solid 2 way wing on the roster. You can downgrade Kanter and use that money so much more wisely. I'd think Presti realizes that and that he sees the one big issue still on the team is the SG/SF rotation.

Given his history, wouldnt it be far more likely to see Presti trade Adams at that point? We've had issues with getting scoring big men, but not defensive. Presti has always managed to get us good low post defenders. Adn i think in this situation Presti would recognize that more than anything else.

Im gonna be honest here though, i dont think Adams is a greedy man, he seems far more loyal and appreciative then greedy. Not to mention he comes from a well off family, so he probably does not feel a sense of responsibility to take care of his family members as much as someone who came from a less financially secure family.

I could be completely wrong on that, but you can get a sense of personality with players.

I also still don't think we have the SG issue many still want to think. Our rotation is more than satisfying and covers all bases, we dont need an individual star at every position.

[bondom34]

The main reason I see it likely is because Adams is due a contract in 2 years. So then you have a max salary backup big man playing 20 mpg and still no solid 2 way wing on the roster. You can downgrade Kanter and use that money so much more wisely. I'd think Presti realizes that and that he sees the one big issue still on the team is the SG/SF rotation.

Given his history, wouldnt it be far more likely to see Presti trade Adams at that point? We've had issues with getting scoring big men, but not defensive. Presti has always managed to get us good low post defenders.

Im gonna be honest here though, i dont think Adams is a greedy man, he seems far more loyal and appreciative then greedy. Not to mention he comes from a well off family, so he probably does not feel a sense of responsibility to take care of his family members as much as someone who came from a less financially secure family.

I could be completely wrong on that, but you can get a sense of personality with players.

I also still don't think we have the SG issue many still want to think. Our rotation is more than satisfying and covers all bases, we dont need an individual star at every position.

I could see Adams taking less, but it would have to be so so much less that he's gonna get way better offers. And there's just more value in general from a defensive big than one who's a bad defender. And they don't need a star wing, just a good one. They still don't have a reliable 2 way option. You can give Adams what he wants and find a backup for half Kanter's price even under the new cap and have 10 mil extra to spend on whoever the wing is. You never know what moves are out there, but I really think the offseason is a time when Kanter gets moved to a team who strikes out and has a ton of left over cash. Presti only signed that 17 mil offer sheet to not lose an asset.

[Bravenewworld]

My point is, you dont need a two way option at every position.
Its nice to have, but you dont need it and most even contending teams only have 2 or 3 of these players in the starting rotation with maybe one on the bench. And me personally, i dont think its realistic to hold this standard.

Presti signed that offer sheet because OKC is potentially the deadliest team in the league with a center like Kanter. Its what we have been searching for, for years. Just because its not perfect does not mean we cant make it work in our favor.

[bondom34]

Elite teams have 2 way players at every position. That's the point I was making. You do need them if you want to beat the likes of the Spurs and GSW. You can't name a player on either of those teams who has the issues on one side of the ball Kanter does. You also can't name a position on either of those teams as lacking as OKC's wings.

[Bravenewworld]

Elite teams have 2 way players at every position. That's the point I was making. You do need them if you want to beat the likes of the Spurs and GSW. You can't name a player on either of those teams who has the issues on one side of the ball Kanter does. You also can't name a position on either of those teams as lacking as OKC's wings.

90s bulls
2000s lakers
2000s spurs
2010s spurs, heat, mavs

None of these teams had two way players at every position. Unless youre considering a defensive 10ppg guy a two way player. Im not. When i hear two way player im expecting the defense w/potential option offense. Not simply being offensively capable or having high production games every now and again.

"You can't name a player on either of those teams who has the issues on one side of the ball Kanter does."

Bogut. His offense is non-existent anymore.

Thompson. Hes always struggled to be anything beyond mediocre offensively.

Speights. He had one solid offensive season and that was it. His entire career hes's struggled as a center though (he's one of those weird players ive tried to watch throughout his entire career. There was something about him in his rookie season i liked).

The Spurs i actually wouldnt.... theyre very unique in their construction and there's not many players i'd consider a two way player, just a bunch of guys who know their exact role.... its hard to define the spurs with traditional terms.

I actually see this and i think youre putting too much on the individual.
The players on the warriors that we could mention as not being two way players, fit their role, that is their value. Same with the Spurs. Bogut's offense is now terrible, but it does not need to be great. Just like with Kanter, we have possibly the most diverse big man rotation in the NBA with plenty of defensive roles. As long as he plays the role we expect of him, its not really an issue. And as mentioned before, and hopefully by now you get what i was saying. As time goes on and the players learn Donovans system more (and we stay healthy) players will become more defined in these roles.

[bondom34]

Elite teams have 2 way players at every position. That's the point I was making. You do need them if you want to beat the likes of the Spurs and GSW. You can't name a player on either of those teams who has the issues on one side of the ball Kanter does. You also can't name a position on either of those teams as lacking as OKC's wings.

90s bulls
2000s lakers
2000s spurs
2010s spurs, heat, mavs

None of these teams had two way players at every position. Unless youre considering a defensive 10ppg guy a two way player. Im not. When i hear two way player im expecting the defense w/potential option offense. Not simply being offensively capable or having high production games every now and again.

"You can't name a player on either of those teams who has the issues on one side of the ball Kanter does."

Bogut. His offense is non-existent anymore.

Thompson. Hes always struggled to be anything beyond mediocre offensively.

Speights. He had one solid offensive season and that was it. His entire career hes's struggled as a center though (he's one of those weird players ive tried to watch throughout his entire career. There was something about him in his rookie season i liked).

The Spurs i actually wouldnt.... theyre very unique in their construction and there's not many players i'd consider a two way player, just a bunch of guys who know their exact role.... its hard to define the spurs with traditional terms.

I actually see this and i think youre putting too much on the individual.
The players on the warriors that we could mention as not being two way players, fit their role, that is their value. Same with the Spurs. Bogut's offense is now terrible, but it does not need to be great. Just like with Kanter, we have possibly the most diverse big man rotation in the NBA with plenty of defensive roles. As long as he plays the role we expect of him, its not really an issue. And as mentioned before, and hopefully by now you get what i was saying. As time goes on and the players learn Donovans system more (and we stay healthy) players will become more defined in these roles.

To the first, I don't know who you're naming on recent Spurs teams who was literall a hole offensively.

And Bogut is still good enough to not be a negative offensively. Thompson is either a top 3 SG or an end of the bench big who never plays depending on which. And Speights is surprisingly good as well.

As this was being typed, Kanter gave up a huge 1st half to Cousins to give back a 15 point lead.

[bondom34]

Bench Scoring:

Kings - 46
Thunder - 17

[spearsy23]

The problem isn't that every player has to be two way, it's that you can't have six one way players Robes/Morrow/Kanter/Adams/McGary/Collison and five no way players Singler/Dion/Augustin/Novak/Huestis. And Payne belongs on the one way list but is getting a pass on his defense until next season. We have three players that are positives or average on both ends, that's why we need two way players, not because we have to have them everywhere but because we need them SOMEWHERE.

[spearsy23]

Oh, and I'd take Zaza over Kanter easily if it wasn't for the age gap. Zaza + Mathews for Enes and Mitch plus a second if Dallas decides to get younger is a no brainer.

[bondom34]

Oh, and I'd take Zaza over Kanter easily if it wasn't for the age gap. Zaza + Mathews for Enes and Mitch plus a second if Dallas decides to get younger is a no brainer.

This is the sort of move I'd love.

The problem isn't that every player has to be two way, it's that you can't have six one way players Robes/Morrow/Kanter/Adams/McGary/Collison and five no way players Singler/Dion/Augustin/Novak/Huestis. And Payne belongs on the one way list but is getting a pass on his defense until next season. We have three players that are positives or average on both ends, that's why we need two way players, not because we have to have them everywhere but because we need them SOMEWHERE.

And this is more what I should have said.

[Bravenewworld]

And Bogut is still good enough to not be a negative offensively. Thompson is either a top 3 SG or an end of the bench big who never plays depending on which. And Speights is surprisingly good as well.

My bad, i forgot they had two Thompsons, im too use to calling the SG "Klay".
But neither of these guys are two way players. And we know this about Jason because of his time spent with the Kings and what has shown us so far on the Warriors (which granted is not much, but i highly doubt he will come in and become a player that he was not, with the Kings.).

Speights is good, i like him. But hes not a two way player.

As this was being typed, Kanter gave up a huge 1st half to Cousins to give back a 15 point lead.

Ok.

Again we're talking about an overall impact, not a quarter, not even a single game. We're talking about having one of the most capable offensive low post players in the game, being added to our roster. You can talk about swapping this out for some 10-10 B+ defender all day, but we will be right back in the position we were in between Kanter and Harden.... and that position was not having a third option or sixth man, however you want to phrase it. We win when Ibaka becomes our fourth option.

[Bravenewworld]

The problem isn't that every player has to be two way, it's that you can't have six one way players Robes/Morrow/Kanter/Adams/McGary/Collison and five no way players Singler/Dion/Augustin/Novak/Huestis. And Payne belongs on the one way list but is getting a pass on his defense until next season. We have three players that are positives or average on both ends, that's why we need two way players, not because we have to have them everywhere but because we need them SOMEWHERE.

Find me a roster without six "one way" players.
No, not one. Show me enough in a single season where we can reasonably suggest that this idea is applicable.

Individual abilities are important, but its not as important as team cohesion and chemistry.
Look at the Mavs team that won a title, did they even have a two way player on it? Dirk was not, Chandler was not, Kidd was long past his two way days, Peja too...
The old 2000s Lakers AND Spurs.
The Heat. Both title generations.

Where is this rule you're stating, proven?
I mean, im sure you can find a couple instances but its definitely not even close to 50%.
The only team that really comes to mind that probably had more "Two way players" then not, would be the old Detroit team and i know im forgetting three or four players on that team and exaggerating what McDyess could do post-injury. .... So im probably wrong in thinking them.
If you want to make a stretched proclamation on this, then four or five two way players sounds reasonable and sounds like reasonable details to debate. But this idea that you cant have six one way players on one team is.... its certainly not something history shows us..... Maybe before the lottery?

[bondom34]

Yeah, Thompson is 100 percent a 2 way guy. Bogut is not incompetent offensively a-la Perkins or Kanter's defense. And you can find bench guys who can score and play defense.

And GSW certainly doesn't have 6 guys who are 1 way, nor does SAS, at least not in the playoff rotation. Morrow is a one way guy, Kanter is, Augustin was, Roberson is, etc. There's a difference between someone being better at one thing and someone entirely inept at one thing. That's a one way guy. Tyson Chandler was a defensive big but could catch a pass and dunk. Dirk was a poor defender but could fit into a defensive scheme.

GSW has Curry, Klay, Barnes, Green all 2 way guys strong on both ends. Bogut can be competent and an average C offensively. Livingston can play both ends reasonably well as can Iggy. And Ezeli is the backup C, not Speights btw. Sorry if you don't believe it and dismiss it, but they're 2 way players. The Spurs are full of em too. I really don't feel like debating you on them because it just turns back to the usual, so say what you'd like but if you ask anyone who watches the game they'd call GSW a team with 2 way players, OKC not so much. Feel free to ask around if you'd like too, I'd be interested.

Edited: And spearsy shows below 2 way guys on title teams. So there's that.

[spearsy23]

The problem isn't that every player has to be two way, it's that you can't have six one way players Robes/Morrow/Kanter/Adams/McGary/Collison and five no way players Singler/Dion/Augustin/Novak/Huestis. And Payne belongs on the one way list but is getting a pass on his defense until next season. We have three players that are positives or average on both ends, that's why we need two way players, not because we have to have them everywhere but because we need them SOMEWHERE.

Find me a roster without six "one way" players.
No, not one. Show me enough in a single season where we can reasonably suggest that this idea is applicable.

Individual abilities are important, but its not as important as team cohesion and chemistry.
Look at the Mavs team that won a title, did they even have a two way player on it? Dirk was not, Chandler was not, Kidd was long past his two way days, Peja too...
The old 2000s Lakers AND Spurs.
The Heat. Both title generations.

Where is this rule you're stating, proven?
I mean, im sure you can find a couple instances but its definitely not even close to 50%.
The only team that really comes to mind that probably had more "Two way players" then not, would be the old Detroit team and i know im forgetting three or four players on that team and exaggerating what McDyess could do post-injury. .... So im probably wrong in thinking them.
If you want to make a stretched proclamation on this, then four or five two way players sounds reasonable and sounds like reasonable details to debate. But this idea that you cant have six one way players on one team is.... its certainly not something history shows us..... Maybe before the lottery?

A two way player is anyone who provide positive value on both ends, they don't need to be great at both, and you certainly don't have to be able to 'run your offense through them.'
2015 Warriors- Curry, Thompson, Green, Iguadola, Barnes
2014 Spurs- Duncan, Leonard, Parker, Ginobili, Diaw, Green
2013 Heat- Wade, Lebron, Bosh, Allen, Battier, Chalmers
2012 Heat- Wade, Lebron, Bosh, Battier, Chalmers

It goes on and on.

[Old Man Game]

I've yet to see anything from DillDOh suggesting he was anything other than a downgrade from Brooks. If we were moving on from a coach that won 62% of his games we needed a home run. BillDOh isn't a home run. But you know, that's probably why the GM should have at least interviewed other candidates.

[Pillendreher]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/royceyoung/status/688444645483778049[/tweet]

Yeah. About that...

[Old Man Game]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/royceyoung/status/688444645483778049[/tweet]

Yeah. About that...

That was and is ridiculous from the get go. If Russ doesn't intercept the pass after fronting the guy he's not all that effective on most NBA PFs nor should any reasonable person expect him to be.