Oklahoma City early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon/Slava)

[bondom34]

Giving OKC an F for Durant's personal choice is like stiffing your server because the cook sucks. So what else did they do?

Dipo for Ibaka alone was thievery + Sabonis and Ilyasove (still can't believe this)
Extended RW
Let Dion go (smart but not a fan of the mechanism)
And could create cap space in 2017, holds and dumping Kanter depending.

A-

Well, perhaps. But the fans are not really have insight information on how much control the management had on Durant staying or leaving. So I think in a ranking like this, perhaps it is just easier to look at the outcome. And if you look at just the outcome, the Thunder deserves a F. If you think about evaluating on Thunder based on how much control that they had, there can be too much variance in the evaluation without knowing what went behind the scenes.

But we can review what we do know they did, and assume with common sense they tried to get him to stay given context. And what they did outside Durant was all good.

[mtron929]

Giving OKC an F for Durant's personal choice is like stiffing your server because the cook sucks. So what else did they do?

Dipo for Ibaka alone was thievery + Sabonis and Ilyasove (still can't believe this)
Extended RW
Let Dion go (smart but not a fan of the mechanism)
And could create cap space in 2017, holds and dumping Kanter depending.

A-

Well, perhaps. But the fans are not really have insight information on how much control the management had on Durant staying or leaving. So I think in a ranking like this, perhaps it is just easier to look at the outcome. And if you look at just the outcome, the Thunder deserves a F. If you think about evaluating on Thunder based on how much control that they had, there can be too much variance in the evaluation without knowing what went behind the scenes.

But we can review what we do know they did, and assume with common sense they tried to get him to stay given context. And what they did outside Durant was all good.

But we don't know if the Thunder did the best that they could have possibly done, right? What if they hit on points A, B, and C while Durant wanted them to hit on points D and E? Then, they might have made a very bad mistake. Also, how much credit should the Warriors be given for the Durant signing then? If Durant wanted to go to the Warriors regardless of what the management of the Warriors sold them on, then they should get zero credit, with similar line of reasoning, right? But then, it seems weird to not give the Warriors any credit for Durant signing as this whole analysis kind of becomes a joke then as they pulled off the biggest coup this offseason.

So it seems like just to be consistent, whether it is fair or not, it is better to just look at the outcomes and not the circumstances. Or else, we need some psychic profile on Durant to know exactly what his mental state was when making a decision to go to the Warriors.

[bondom34]

But we don't know if the Thunder did the best that they could have possibly done, right? What if they hit on points A, B, and C while Durant wanted them to hit on points D and E? Then, they might have made a very bad mistake. Also, how much credit should the Warriors be given for the Durant signing then? If Durant wanted to go to the Warriors regardless of what the management of the Warriors sold them on, then they should get zero credit, with similar line of reasoning, right? But then, it seems weird to not give the Warriors any credit for Durant signing as this whole analysis kind of becomes a joke then as they pulled off the biggest coup this offseason.

So it seems like just to be consistent, whether it is fair or not, it is better to just look at the outcomes and not the circumstances. Or else, we need some psychic profile on Durant to know exactly what his mental state was when making a decision to go to the Warriors.

But we're grading on what we know. Unless you're docking the Spurs and Clips for not getting him, as well as Boston, it makes no sense to do it for OKC. The Warriors get 100 percent credit, either way. Reports 2 days before signing were he was 90 percent to OKC, so clearly OKC did quite a bit right. What we do know is outside of that one event, they pulled a great trade, signed some promising players, and let some bad players go.

The correct way is:

Team signs free agent: Gets credit
Loses free agent signing: If you want to dock slightly, maybe, but realistically you can't

I even took off a little for it, but even at that can't go lower than a C+

[mtron929]

But we don't know if the Thunder did the best that they could have possibly done, right? What if they hit on points A, B, and C while Durant wanted them to hit on points D and E? Then, they might have made a very bad mistake. Also, how much credit should the Warriors be given for the Durant signing then? If Durant wanted to go to the Warriors regardless of what the management of the Warriors sold them on, then they should get zero credit, with similar line of reasoning, right? But then, it seems weird to not give the Warriors any credit for Durant signing as this whole analysis kind of becomes a joke then as they pulled off the biggest coup this offseason.

So it seems like just to be consistent, whether it is fair or not, it is better to just look at the outcomes and not the circumstances. Or else, we need some psychic profile on Durant to know exactly what his mental state was when making a decision to go to the Warriors.

But we're grading on what we know. Unless you're docking the Spurs and Clips for not getting him, as well as Boston, it makes no sense to do it for OKC. The Warriors get 100 percent credit, either way. Reports 2 days before signing were he was 90 percent to OKC, so clearly OKC did quite a bit right. What we do know is outside of that one event, they pulled a great trade, signed some promising players, and let some bad players go.

The correct way is:

Team signs free agent: Gets credit
Loses free agent signing: If you want to dock slightly, maybe, but realistically you can't

I even took off a little for it, but even at that can't go lower than a C+

I guess one fundamental difference is that I have skepticism of all of these reports. Thus, you believe that KD was committed to OKC at 90 percent. I just don't know if that is even true. For all we know, he could have been set on the Warriors from the beginning, or he might have been totally convinced by the Warriors with his meeting. Maybe he prayed to God hours before and God stated that he should go to the Bay Area. Who knows.

[bondom34]

But we don't know if the Thunder did the best that they could have possibly done, right? What if they hit on points A, B, and C while Durant wanted them to hit on points D and E? Then, they might have made a very bad mistake. Also, how much credit should the Warriors be given for the Durant signing then? If Durant wanted to go to the Warriors regardless of what the management of the Warriors sold them on, then they should get zero credit, with similar line of reasoning, right? But then, it seems weird to not give the Warriors any credit for Durant signing as this whole analysis kind of becomes a joke then as they pulled off the biggest coup this offseason.

So it seems like just to be consistent, whether it is fair or not, it is better to just look at the outcomes and not the circumstances. Or else, we need some psychic profile on Durant to know exactly what his mental state was when making a decision to go to the Warriors.

But we're grading on what we know. Unless you're docking the Spurs and Clips for not getting him, as well as Boston, it makes no sense to do it for OKC. The Warriors get 100 percent credit, either way. Reports 2 days before signing were he was 90 percent to OKC, so clearly OKC did quite a bit right. What we do know is outside of that one event, they pulled a great trade, signed some promising players, and let some bad players go.

The correct way is:

Team signs free agent: Gets credit
Loses free agent signing: If you want to dock slightly, maybe, but realistically you can't

I even took off a little for it, but even at that can't go lower than a C+

I guess one fundamental difference is that I have skepticism of all of these reports. Thus, you believe that KD was committed to OKC at 90 percent. I just don't know if that is even true. For all we know, he could have been set on the Warriors from the beginning, or he might have been totally convinced by the Warriors with his meeting. Maybe he prayed to God hours before and God stated that he should go to the Bay Area. Who knows.

And under all 3 of those scenarios, what OKC did had no final bearing on his decision. The decision was his and his alone. I can't fairly downgrade someone totally on what someone else did. Or else Boston, LAC, and SAS also failed.

[oken]

I gave a B for Presti being too naive about it and squandering their chances at FA while waiting for it to make a decision. It seems everybody including Horford knew about the situation while OKC FO was somehow convinced themselves that it would return. They somehow should have forced it to declare its decision at start of FA instead of going through that charade. Other moves were spot on so just one inevitable loss of a sissy of short forwards which is not even man enough to face it and stays under blanket for next 3 days is not that bad.

[Old Man Game]

No one here's going to mention letting Waiters walk? That's an A right there.

Did you not even read my review? I wrote about 10 sentences exclusively on that waste of space.

Sorry. I might have skipped ahead a few posts.

[HartfordWhalers]

Also, how much credit should the Warriors be given for the Durant signing then? If Durant wanted to go to the Warriors regardless of what the management of the Warriors sold them on, then they should get zero credit, with similar line of reasoning, right? But then, it seems weird to not give the Warriors any credit for Durant signing as this whole analysis kind of becomes a joke then as they pulled off the biggest coup this offseason.

So it seems like just to be consistent, whether it is fair or not, it is better to just look at the outcomes and not the circumstances. Or else, we need some psychic profile on Durant to know exactly what his mental state was when making a decision to go to the Warriors.

I find this argument somewhat compelling. Durant cannot have been expected to both leave OKC, and also not expected to join GS. If one exceeded expectations, the other had to drop below expectations on Durant.

I think this was something that helped keep me at a B+ and not an A, but I also think its something where I come down to process over results. Did OKC have the right process in place to convince Durant to stay as much as possible, and just get a bad break on his decision which was somewhat up in the air? Or was their process not as strong as it should have been?

I hinted at this with the Ibaka trade:

So, do you grade the Ibaka trade knowing Durant left, or do you grade it knowing he might have left? And did it make it easier or harder for Durant to leave?

I feel like maybe that made it easier on the margin for Durant to avoid the 1+1, but what do I know, and maybe it didn't. It is hard to penalize here unless Durant opens up more. I don't see a massive process failure that would be a clear ding on them. I also don't see a brilliant process move to entice him to stay, like how Boston grabbed Horford in a big play.

I don't see the case OKC made for keeping Durant as so flawed to submarine their whole grade, and knowing that he was openly mentally exploring the idea of free agency well before it happened I think OKC had a very delicate tight rope between making their best case and not handcuffing the future.

[Texas Chuck]

I mean I think Durant leaving has to be factored in negatively here. Has to.

But the further we get away from this the more it looks like Durant never had any intentions of staying. He seems to have been on a mission over the last year and half or so to completely change his image. He used to embrace being the humble superstar, but its clear he got tired of that moniker and to put it in wrestling terms, he's been preparing us for his Hogan NWO turn for awhile now.

And moving to GSW was the most heel move he could make, particularly after how the WCF played out. And while I do believe OKC wasted some of Durant and Westbrooks careers by sitting on their hands for years, its hard to fault them for getting more aggressive lately---tho both major moves prior to this off-season were for young players. I do think Presti probably still puts too much on sustainability which isn't a bad idea or anything especially in that market, but when you have a championship core with holes and assets you could have used to fill them.....I sure think he missed some chances.

But I don't think those early lack of moves had much to do with Durant's decision here. I think he wanted to move on, I think he thinks he couldn't win with Westbrook, and he made a move that he thought would get him the titles to salvage his legacy. He didn't want to be Karl Malone or Charles Barkley. I think he just made himself Clyde Drexler tho when he still could have been Kobe, but oh well.

[mtron929]

But we're grading on what we know. Unless you're docking the Spurs and Clips for not getting him, as well as Boston, it makes no sense to do it for OKC. The Warriors get 100 percent credit, either way. Reports 2 days before signing were he was 90 percent to OKC, so clearly OKC did quite a bit right. What we do know is outside of that one event, they pulled a great trade, signed some promising players, and let some bad players go.

The correct way is:

Team signs free agent: Gets credit
Loses free agent signing: If you want to dock slightly, maybe, but realistically you can't

I even took off a little for it, but even at that can't go lower than a C+

I guess one fundamental difference is that I have skepticism of all of these reports. Thus, you believe that KD was committed to OKC at 90 percent. I just don't know if that is even true. For all we know, he could have been set on the Warriors from the beginning, or he might have been totally convinced by the Warriors with his meeting. Maybe he prayed to God hours before and God stated that he should go to the Bay Area. Who knows.

And under all 3 of those scenarios, what OKC did had no final bearing on his decision. The decision was his and his alone. I can't fairly downgrade someone totally on what someone else did. Or else Boston, LAC, and SAS also failed.

Well, I guess in this scenario, I would be lenient to Boston, LAC, and SAS as they never had Durant to begin with. Moreover, here is the way I see it. In term of offseason review and grades to be handed out, we can simply compare the state of the team at the end of the 2015/16 NBA season and the current state of the team and judge the teams based on their delta changes. And since I cannot think of any team that has fallen harder than the Thunder within this context, fair or not, they get the worst grade in the entire NBA for the offseason. Teams like Boston, LAC, and SAS never had Durant so they do not get points taken off for not being able to sign Durant.

[mtron929]

Also, how much credit should the Warriors be given for the Durant signing then? If Durant wanted to go to the Warriors regardless of what the management of the Warriors sold them on, then they should get zero credit, with similar line of reasoning, right? But then, it seems weird to not give the Warriors any credit for Durant signing as this whole analysis kind of becomes a joke then as they pulled off the biggest coup this offseason.

So it seems like just to be consistent, whether it is fair or not, it is better to just look at the outcomes and not the circumstances. Or else, we need some psychic profile on Durant to know exactly what his mental state was when making a decision to go to the Warriors.

I find this argument somewhat compelling. Durant cannot have been expected to both leave OKC, and also not expected to join GS. If one exceeded expectations, the other had to drop below expectations on Durant.

I think this was something that helped keep me at a B+ and not an A, but I also think its something where I come down to process over results. Did OKC have the right process in place to convince Durant to stay as much as possible, and just get a bad break on his decision which was somewhat up in the air? Or was their process not as strong as it should have been?

I hinted at this with the Ibaka trade:

So, do you grade the Ibaka trade knowing Durant left, or do you grade it knowing he might have left? And did it make it easier or harder for Durant to leave?

I feel like maybe that made it easier on the margin for Durant to avoid the 1+1, but what do I know, and maybe it didn't. It is hard to penalize here unless Durant opens up more. I don't see a massive process failure that would be a clear ding on them. I also don't see a brilliant process move to entice him to stay, like how Boston grabbed Horford in a big play.

I don't see the case OKC made for keeping Durant as so flawed to submarine their whole grade, and knowing that he was openly mentally exploring the idea of free agency well before it happened I think OKC had a very delicate tight rope between making their best case and not handcuffing the future.

IN some sense, the process over results is more fair way to grade what the team has done and might absolutely be more indicative of how the team will fair in the future in terms of making decisions. Unfortunately, this way of analysis just seems too messy to undertake as in this way of evaluation, you have to take into account not just the transactions that occurred but all the transactions that did not occur. As someone mentioned, teams like Boston could not sign Durant. Should Ainge be docked points off of this? Perhaps Durant really wanted to go to the Celtics but Ainge rubbed him the wrong way in his presentation. Who knows? As a fan, analysis of offseason movement is akin to watching a NBA game but only getting 1% of the actions and trying to judge the details behind what transpired in the said game. In this context, I will just resort to looking at the final scores and making judgment on how the teams faired.

[Mr. E]

I dont feel the Ibaka trade was as one-sided as people make it out to be, considering OKC fans were turning down Dipo for Ibaka straight up earlier.

And they were right. A straight up trade for Dipo & Ibaka was not enough to make it work. Orlando had to add a rotation player and a player selected in the lottery to make the deal happen.

[Texas Chuck]

I dont feel the Ibaka trade was as one-sided as people make it out to be, considering OKC fans were turning down Dipo for Ibaka straight up earlier.

And they were right. A straight up trade for Dipo & Ibaka was not enough to make it work. Orlando had to add a rotation player and a player selected in the lottery to make the deal happen.

So much this. Ignoring Sabonis here seems really odd when trying to make that point. And Ilyasova figures to be important as well and OKC chose him over cap space.

But I will agree both OKC and Magic fans have definitely had a shift in their opinions on these two players. I know Brandon talks about he looked at Dipo much closer than he had previously and feels like he had been underrating him before. I'd imagine that's probably true of most posters from both teams---no reason to look at the positives for a player not on your team the way you do a guy on your team. And once a guy is off your team, its easier to take a honest look at his weaknesses in ways you might have preferred not to before.

Tho I still strongly prefer Parsons to Barnes so I'm doing it wrong I guess.

[Texas Chuck]

In this context, I will just resort to looking at the final scores and making judgment on how the teams faired.

Being results oriented is always an option. But generally its not the best one. Tho I'd love to play poker with you and I'd hope you cracked my Kings with J4o on the first hand.

I agree that just like in poker, we have to work with incomplete information in evaluating what other possible options and outcomes were out there, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt an evaluation on more than just end results.

Otherwise we should just review the off-season the following off-season and declare Cleveland the winner for last summer regardless on the moves they made because obviously they won the title and so every move must have been brilliant. As opposed to saying they started with Lebron and even with making some mistakes in the off-season(Blatt still the head coach being an obvious one) they were able to overcome.

[HartfordWhalers]

IN some sense, the process over results is more fair way to grade what the team has done and might absolutely be more indicative of how the team will fair in the future in terms of making decisions. Unfortunately, this way of analysis just seems too messy to undertake as in this way of evaluation, you have to take into account not just the transactions that occurred but all the transactions that did not occur. As someone mentioned, teams like Boston could not sign Durant. Should Ainge be docked points off of this? Perhaps Durant really wanted to go to the Celtics but Ainge rubbed him the wrong way in his presentation. Who knows? As a fan, analysis of offseason movement is akin to watching a NBA game but only getting 1% of the actions and trying to judge the details behind what transpired in the said game. In this context, I will just resort to looking at the final scores and making judgment on how the teams faired.

Enough has come out about that that I know the opposite to be the case, that the presentation was actually a strong one.

As for process over results being messy, I don't thin it has for a review yet. However, that should all change with Philly, because you either have to ignore all the rumors -- some with little credibility and some with a lot more -- and grade the team based upon the few moves that have happened. Or you grade the team based upon (some) reports of various credibility that may not be totally accurate and reflect a process that didn't have any results. The Philly review should be interesting.

[bondom34]

I guess one fundamental difference is that I have skepticism of all of these reports. Thus, you believe that KD was committed to OKC at 90 percent. I just don't know if that is even true. For all we know, he could have been set on the Warriors from the beginning, or he might have been totally convinced by the Warriors with his meeting. Maybe he prayed to God hours before and God stated that he should go to the Bay Area. Who knows.

And under all 3 of those scenarios, what OKC did had no final bearing on his decision. The decision was his and his alone. I can't fairly downgrade someone totally on what someone else did. Or else Boston, LAC, and SAS also failed.

Well, I guess in this scenario, I would be lenient to Boston, LAC, and SAS as they never had Durant to begin with. Moreover, here is the way I see it. In term of offseason review and grades to be handed out, we can simply compare the state of the team at the end of the 2015/16 NBA season and the current state of the team and judge the teams based on their delta changes. And since I cannot think of any team that has fallen harder than the Thunder within this context, fair or not, they get the worst grade in the entire NBA for the offseason. Teams like Boston, LAC, and SAS never had Durant so they do not get points taken off for not being able to sign Durant.

But you can't just judge a delta that a team had no control over, its not winning a baseball game because it was rained out. OKC did all it could to be better, and something totally unrelated to their control changed.

[wise1-2]

They lost a top 3 player, and I'm not giving the thunder a pass here. I don't know what they could or couldn't have done to keep him, but I'm not going to just ignore the fact that they weren't able to.

The ibaka trade was okay, but IMO their defense is going to suffer. Some people believe Adams is an elite defender, but I don't see it. I think we'll see him regress defensively without Ibaka. Their front court in the second unit is now Sabonis+Kanter and that's going to be terrible defensively. Oladipo is an upgrade over Waiters defensively, but he's very inconsistent, and not nearly as impactful as Ibaka. I'm not high on Sabonis either, but I'm also not high on any of the prospects in that range of this draft. They made the right choice in trading Ibaka IMO as he was getting disgruntled. They also got a good return value wise. Still they lost an important player IMO.

So they decided to build around Oladipo+Westbrook, but they aren't a great fit together because they have overlapping skill sets, and the Thunder haven't supplied them with great shooters. Roberson is supposed to start at SF with Westbrook and Oladipo? Ilyasova isn't a consistent or great shooter either. They don't have one great shooter in the line up? Westbrook's efficiency is going to drop IMO. That pair is going to be exciting to watch, but they have to prove they can play together first. I think they're capable, but they also need floor spacers. For now, I don't think you want them both on the floor together for too long.

Roberson and Ilyasova shouldn't be starters IMO. If they are, they're both two of the worst at their positions.

Depth is pretty bad as well. If Payne improves he can be a decent bench PG. Collison is fine, but he' also 36 years old. I don't like any of their bench players, including Kanter. I would not want Kanter and Singler on my team at those contracts no matter the circumstances. The Thunder should've dumped Kanter if they could've. Morrow is again a terrible defender, and Singler is trash. Their bench has absolutely no defense, and not enough offense to make up for it. Ilyasova and Roberson aren't going to play 35 mpg and the thunder will be relying on a rookie and some end of bench quality guys to back them up. So again I think the forward positions are going to be huge weaknesses for that team.

The Westbrook contract renegotiation is the only thing preventing me from giving them an F. I gave them a D. Losing Durant aside, they did a terrible job reconstructing their team IMO.

[bondom34]

That's a totally unbiased take.

[Audi]

Giving OKC an F for Durant's personal choice is like stiffing your server because the cook sucks. So what else did they do?

Dipo for Ibaka alone was thievery + Sabonis and Ilyasove (still can't believe this)
Extended RW
Let Dion go (smart but not a fan of the mechanism)
And could create cap space in 2017, holds and dumping Kanter depending.

A-

Seriously don't get this at all. Please explain how Ibaka not only holds less value than Oladipo, but to such an extent that a straight up swap is considered "thievery".

[Mystical Apples]

Giving OKC an F for Durant's personal choice is like stiffing your server because the cook sucks. So what else did they do?

Dipo for Ibaka alone was thievery + Sabonis and Ilyasove (still can't believe this)
Extended RW
Let Dion go (smart but not a fan of the mechanism)
And could create cap space in 2017, holds and dumping Kanter depending.

A-

Seriously don't get this at all. Please explain how Ibaka not only holds less value than Oladipo, but to such an extent that a straight up swap is considered "thievery".

Current salary, RFA vs. UFA, potential max figure, and production. Only the last point can possibly favor Ibaka but even there I'd take Oladipo.

I'd also put more faith in Oladipo's future as a true 2-position, on or off ball player. Guys like that have more value to their FO (roster building) and coaching rotations during injury and the playoffs.