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

[mtron929]

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.

Well, I am just contending that it is not clear to me on how much control the Thunder had over this entire situation. You might be right in that Kevin Durant was insistent on joining the Warriors regardless of what the Thunder did. However, it might be true that if the Thunder management pressed the right buttons, Durant would have stayed. I am not arguing for either of these positions but simply stating that I have no way of knowing what really transpired and I have skepticism of all reports regarding this issue.

Also, if we remain completely neutral on anything that is deemed beyond a team's control, then it is conceivable that a team like the Thunder can get an A+ grade for the offseason, which just seems weird to me. Results should matter and these types of results where a top 3 player jumps to another team should be penalized heavily, I think.

[bondom34]

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.

Well, I am just contending that it is not clear to me on how much control the Thunder had over this entire situation. You might be right in that Kevin Durant was insistent on joining the Warriors regardless of what the Thunder did. However, it might be true that if the Thunder management pressed the right buttons, Durant would have stayed. I am not arguing for either of these positions but simply stating that I have no way of knowing what really transpired and I have skepticism of all reports regarding this issue.

Also, if we remain completely neutral on anything that is deemed beyond a team's control, then it is conceivable that a team like the Thunder can get an A+ grade for the offseason, which just seems weird to me. Results should matter and these types of results where a top 3 player jumps to another team should be penalized heavily, I think.

How can't it be clear? They can't hold a guy hostage, its literally his choice. Unless they went ot the meeting and told him to leave, they did all they could.

And yes, an A would be concievable if a team does everything possible to improve but still doesn't. The point is to grade a team for how well it performed what it could to have a plan. For example, the Cavs don't get an A because they signed Lebron for coming home, that was totally uninvolved in something they did.

[mtron929]

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.

Well, I am just contending that it is not clear to me on how much control the Thunder had over this entire situation. You might be right in that Kevin Durant was insistent on joining the Warriors regardless of what the Thunder did. However, it might be true that if the Thunder management pressed the right buttons, Durant would have stayed. I am not arguing for either of these positions but simply stating that I have no way of knowing what really transpired and I have skepticism of all reports regarding this issue.

Also, if we remain completely neutral on anything that is deemed beyond a team's control, then it is conceivable that a team like the Thunder can get an A+ grade for the offseason, which just seems weird to me. Results should matter and these types of results where a top 3 player jumps to another team should be penalized heavily, I think.

How can't it be clear? They can't hold a guy hostage, its literally his choice. Unless they went ot the meeting and told him to leave, they did all they could.

And yes, an A would be concievable if a team does everything possible to improve but still doesn't. The point is to grade a team for how well it performed what it could to have a plan. For example, the Cavs don't get an A because they signed Lebron for coming home, that was totally uninvolved in something they did.

I don't know how I can make myself more clear. You don't know if they did all they could do. They might think that they did all they could have done but the reality might not be true in that Kevin Durant might have wanted some issue X handeled and X wasn't handeled well.

It would be akin to a marriage where one party decides to have a divorce and the other one is absolutely baffled thinking that he/she did everything he can do to make the marriage work. Perhaps, yes, perhaps no.

[bondom34]

Well, I am just contending that it is not clear to me on how much control the Thunder had over this entire situation. You might be right in that Kevin Durant was insistent on joining the Warriors regardless of what the Thunder did. However, it might be true that if the Thunder management pressed the right buttons, Durant would have stayed. I am not arguing for either of these positions but simply stating that I have no way of knowing what really transpired and I have skepticism of all reports regarding this issue.

Also, if we remain completely neutral on anything that is deemed beyond a team's control, then it is conceivable that a team like the Thunder can get an A+ grade for the offseason, which just seems weird to me. Results should matter and these types of results where a top 3 player jumps to another team should be penalized heavily, I think.

How can't it be clear? They can't hold a guy hostage, its literally his choice. Unless they went ot the meeting and told him to leave, they did all they could.

And yes, an A would be concievable if a team does everything possible to improve but still doesn't. The point is to grade a team for how well it performed what it could to have a plan. For example, the Cavs don't get an A because they signed Lebron for coming home, that was totally uninvolved in something they did.

I don't know how I can make myself more clear. You don't know if they did all they could do. They might think that they did all they could have done but the reality might not be true in that Kevin Durant might have wanted some issue X handeled and X wasn't handeled well.

It would be akin to a marriage where one party decides to have a divorce and the other one is absolutely baffled thinking that he/she did everything he can do to make the marriage work. Perhaps, yes, perhaps no.

And I don't know how I could be more clear, that is inferring a lot into a situation in which you're just assuming the worst inherently. Again, if you're doing it here you'd dock other teams who didn't sign him as well.

[mtron929]

How can't it be clear? They can't hold a guy hostage, its literally his choice. Unless they went ot the meeting and told him to leave, they did all they could.

And yes, an A would be concievable if a team does everything possible to improve but still doesn't. The point is to grade a team for how well it performed what it could to have a plan. For example, the Cavs don't get an A because they signed Lebron for coming home, that was totally uninvolved in something they did.

I don't know how I can make myself more clear. You don't know if they did all they could do. They might think that they did all they could have done but the reality might not be true in that Kevin Durant might have wanted some issue X handeled and X wasn't handeled well.

It would be akin to a marriage where one party decides to have a divorce and the other one is absolutely baffled thinking that he/she did everything he can do to make the marriage work. Perhaps, yes, perhaps no.

And I don't know how I could be more clear, that is inferring a lot into a situation in which you're just assuming the worst inherently. Again, if you're doing it here you'd dock other teams who didn't sign him as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. I prefer the result-oriented evaluation and you prefer the process-oriented evaluation.

[bondom34]

I don't know how I can make myself more clear. You don't know if they did all they could do. They might think that they did all they could have done but the reality might not be true in that Kevin Durant might have wanted some issue X handeled and X wasn't handeled well.

It would be akin to a marriage where one party decides to have a divorce and the other one is absolutely baffled thinking that he/she did everything he can do to make the marriage work. Perhaps, yes, perhaps no.

And I don't know how I could be more clear, that is inferring a lot into a situation in which you're just assuming the worst inherently. Again, if you're doing it here you'd dock other teams who didn't sign him as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. I prefer the result-oriented evaluation and you prefer the process-oriented evaluation.

I'm cool w/ that.

One final thing though, if you're purely result oriented, in theory you'd grade GSW worse than a team like Boston or Utah, since in reality, those teams will improve in the win column more, though they added much lesser players. Its a matter of if a team's plan made sense, which OKC's did. They missed on a free agent, I'm not totally scrapping all the good done by 1 thing not in their control at all. Durant was staying by everyone's thoughts, it doesn't make sense to scrap everything else.

[Magic Giannison]

I wouldn't count Durrant as a part of OKC offseason, as it snot like he was restricted and let him go its just player decided to leave which is hard to put any blame at front office.
I graded them B, i like the moves they did this summer and i think despite losing a cornerstone player they actually added some very intriguing and good guys.
My only questionmark is their shooting .

[HartfordWhalers]

And I don't know how I could be more clear, that is inferring a lot into a situation in which you're just assuming the worst inherently. Again, if you're doing it here you'd dock other teams who didn't sign him as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. I prefer the result-oriented evaluation and you prefer the process-oriented evaluation.

I'm cool w/ that.

One final thing though, if you're purely result oriented, in theory you'd grade GSW worse than a team like Boston or Utah, since in reality, those teams will improve in the win column more, though they added much lesser players.

No. Sorry, but I have had this argument a lot elsewhere and even if you are results oriented, the gap between 25 wins and 30 wins is not the same as the gap between 55 wins and 60 wins (yes that is exaggerated difference in starting points). First the type of improvement needed to add marginal wins should should a natural increasing marginal cost. I'm pretty sure something like SRS might be able to make the case that going from 10 to 11 wins requires a heck less extra talent than 73 to 74 wins.

But even more fundamentally, the net gain of the wins can be radically different. After all, wins really aren't the end goal in the NBA, but a means to get to an end goal (playoffs, 2nd round, championship, huge home attendance and profits). So, the gap between 45 and 50 could be extremely small in terms of the actual fundamental goals, while the gap between 65 and 68 wins could have a huge impact on one of those goals.

All wins are not created equally, both in inputs required and in utility derived from them.

[bondom34]

I guess we can agree to disagree. I prefer the result-oriented evaluation and you prefer the process-oriented evaluation.

I'm cool w/ that.

One final thing though, if you're purely result oriented, in theory you'd grade GSW worse than a team like Boston or Utah, since in reality, those teams will improve in the win column more, though they added much lesser players.

No. Sorry, but I have had this argument a lot elsewhere and even if you are results oriented, the gap between 25 wins and 30 wins is not the same as the gap between 55 wins and 60 wins (yes that is exaggerated difference in starting points). First the type of improvement needed to add marginal wins should should a natural increasing marginal cost. I'm pretty sure something like SRS might be able to make the case that going from 10 to 11 wins requires a heck less extra talent than 73 to 74 wins.

But even more fundamentally, the net gain of the wins can be radically different. After all, wins really aren't the end goal in the NBA, but a means to get to an end goal (playoffs, 2nd round, championship, huge home attendance and profits). So, the gap between 45 and 50 could be extremely small in terms of the actual fundamental goals, while the gap between 65 and 68 wins could have a huge impact on one of those goals.

All wins are not created equally, both in inputs required and in utility derived from them.

But if they win fewer than 72...

[HartfordWhalers]

I'm cool w/ that.

One final thing though, if you're purely result oriented, in theory you'd grade GSW worse than a team like Boston or Utah, since in reality, those teams will improve in the win column more, though they added much lesser players.

No. Sorry, but I have had this argument a lot elsewhere and even if you are results oriented, the gap between 25 wins and 30 wins is not the same as the gap between 55 wins and 60 wins (yes that is exaggerated difference in starting points). First the type of improvement needed to add marginal wins should should a natural increasing marginal cost. I'm pretty sure something like SRS might be able to make the case that going from 10 to 11 wins requires a heck less extra talent than 73 to 74 wins.

But even more fundamentally, the net gain of the wins can be radically different. After all, wins really aren't the end goal in the NBA, but a means to get to an end goal (playoffs, 2nd round, championship, huge home attendance and profits). So, the gap between 45 and 50 could be extremely small in terms of the actual fundamental goals, while the gap between 65 and 68 wins could have a huge impact on one of those goals.

All wins are not created equally, both in inputs required and in utility derived from them.

But if they win fewer than 72...

Hahah. Well, then we can mostly ignore my side rant, although you might still want to look at something that might measure a team's skill level slighty less noisy than wins (SRS for instance but certainly not limited to that one) just to make sure it isn't a better team that just had 2 less lucky shots at the right time.

Or is that too process of a way to judge results and not process?

[bondom34]

Hahah. Well, then we can mostly ignore my side rant, although you might still want to look at something that might measure a team's skill level slighty less noisy than wins (SRS for instance but certainly not limited to that one) just to make sure it isn't a better team that just had 2 less lucky shots at the right time.

Or is that too process of a way to judge results and not process?

SRS seems fair, but again, I'd guess Golden State's isn't as high this year as last, in which case by either method they failed. Its why the results oriented thing doesn't work out to me at all. I'd guess quite a few teams improve more than they do this year, while having "worse" offseasons. And I know we both agree that you can take a results oriented step back while improving in reality in outlook or while making all the correct moves (see Nets last year).

[HartfordWhalers]

Hahah. Well, then we can mostly ignore my side rant, although you might still want to look at something that might measure a team's skill level slighty less noisy than wins (SRS for instance but certainly not limited to that one) just to make sure it isn't a better team that just had 2 less lucky shots at the right time.

Or is that too process of a way to judge results and not process?

SRS seems fair, but again, I'd guess Golden State's isn't as high this year as last, in which case by either method they failed. Its why the results oriented thing doesn't work out to me at all. I'd guess quite a few teams improve more than they do this year, while having "worse" offseasons. And I know we both agree that you can take a results oriented step back while improving in reality in outlook or while making all the correct moves (see Nets last year).

I really disliked the Nets stretching Deron last year.

I'm a big opponent of the wisdom of stretching. It basically takes your lumps, and spreads them out to as many years as possible. In the NBA, the name of the game is stars. And to get stars, you want as much cap room as possible at one time (and/or high draft picks, etc).

The idea of stretching Williams without a legit tier 1 fa that you need that space right now to sign it with is just dumb. And in one more year, the hit from stretching him would be considerably less. Meanwhile, this summer the team won't have any cap space anyway, whats the gain? There is none.

So, no. Definitely not. Absolutely not. And that is before considering that it would downgrade the talent on the floor.

viewtopic.php?p=43504336#p43504336

So, I would have given them a real bad grade last offseason (i skipped the actual offseason thread). But they really just messed that one up awfully.

[bondom34]

Hahah. Well, then we can mostly ignore my side rant, although you might still want to look at something that might measure a team's skill level slighty less noisy than wins (SRS for instance but certainly not limited to that one) just to make sure it isn't a better team that just had 2 less lucky shots at the right time.

Or is that too process of a way to judge results and not process?

SRS seems fair, but again, I'd guess Golden State's isn't as high this year as last, in which case by either method they failed. Its why the results oriented thing doesn't work out to me at all. I'd guess quite a few teams improve more than they do this year, while having "worse" offseasons. And I know we both agree that you can take a results oriented step back while improving in reality in outlook or while making all the correct moves (see Nets last year).

I really disliked the Nets stretching Deron last year.

I'm a big opponent of the wisdom of stretching. It basically takes your lumps, and spreads them out to as many years as possible. In the NBA, the name of the game is stars. And to get stars, you want as much cap room as possible at one time (and/or high draft picks, etc).

The idea of stretching Williams without a legit tier 1 fa that you need that space right now to sign it with is just dumb. And in one more year, the hit from stretching him would be considerably less. Meanwhile, this summer the team won't have any cap space anyway, whats the gain? There is none.

So, no. Definitely not. Absolutely not. And that is before considering that it would downgrade the talent on the floor.

viewtopic.php?p=43504336#p43504336

So, I would have given them a real bad grade last offseason (i skipped the actual offseason thread). But they really just messed that one up awfully.

I do remember you saying in a thread somewhere taking a temporary step back doesn't = a bad offseason, can't remember where.

Also, iirc they did a bunch of other things than stretch him which I thought at least should have made up for it even if you weren't a fan of that move.

[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".

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.

Current salary? By that metric, a player on the vet min would have been the most epic grab possible. The only way this makes sense is on a production-per-dollar type of thought process, but then there are problems comparing production between the two because they are in different situations (one being a 1st/2nd option on a bottom team and the other playing as a 3rd/4th behind two top 10 players on a deep playoff team. I can say throwing in the 11th was overkill, but to infer Oladipo is that much better than Ibaka is even moreso...and that's coming from a fan of Dipo.

[HartfordWhalers]

SRS seems fair, but again, I'd guess Golden State's isn't as high this year as last, in which case by either method they failed. Its why the results oriented thing doesn't work out to me at all. I'd guess quite a few teams improve more than they do this year, while having "worse" offseasons. And I know we both agree that you can take a results oriented step back while improving in reality in outlook or while making all the correct moves (see Nets last year).

I really disliked the Nets stretching Deron last year.

I'm a big opponent of the wisdom of stretching. It basically takes your lumps, and spreads them out to as many years as possible. In the NBA, the name of the game is stars. And to get stars, you want as much cap room as possible at one time (and/or high draft picks, etc).

The idea of stretching Williams without a legit tier 1 fa that you need that space right now to sign it with is just dumb. And in one more year, the hit from stretching him would be considerably less. Meanwhile, this summer the team won't have any cap space anyway, whats the gain? There is none.

So, no. Definitely not. Absolutely not. And that is before considering that it would downgrade the talent on the floor.

viewtopic.php?p=43504336#p43504336

So, I would have given them a real bad grade last offseason (i skipped the actual offseason thread). But they really just messed that one up awfully.

I do remember you saying in a thread somewhere taking a temporary step back doesn't = a bad offseason, can't remember where.

Also, iirc they did a bunch of other things than stretch him which I thought at least should have made up for it even if you weren't a fan of that move.

Oh, I've said that almost everywhere. I'm a Philly fan!

As for the Nets, I probably would have gone a D+/C-. Deron being ~5.5m on the cap for the next 3 seasons after this one instead of getting the Nets to the salary floor this season is just awful. If you are a huge fan of RHJ you can give them a B-/C+ I suppose, but they did pay a good price there as well and I'm not going that far.

But yeah, I judge process.

[bondom34]

I really disliked the Nets stretching Deron last year.


viewtopic.php?p=43504336#p43504336

So, I would have given them a real bad grade last offseason (i skipped the actual offseason thread). But they really just messed that one up awfully.

I do remember you saying in a thread somewhere taking a temporary step back doesn't = a bad offseason, can't remember where.

Also, iirc they did a bunch of other things than stretch him which I thought at least should have made up for it even if you weren't a fan of that move.

Oh, I've said that almost everywhere. I'm a Philly fan!

As for the Nets, I probably would have gone a D+/C-. Deron being ~5.5m on the cap for the next 3 seasons after this one instead of getting the Nets to the salary floor this season is just awful. If you are a huge fan of RHJ you can give them a B-/C+ I suppose, but they did pay a good price there as well and I'm not going that far.

But yeah, I judge process.

So we agree...

[HartfordWhalers]

...

Go find an OKC poster (besides you or brandon) to give a guest win total for the spreadsheet!

[Pillendreher]

You need a win prediction? 52 wins.

[Old Man Game]

Win prediction: 50 wins.

[Mystical Apples]

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.

they are in different situations (one being a 1st/2nd option on a bottom team and the other playing as a 3rd/4th behind two top 10 players on a deep playoff team. I can say throwing in the 11th was overkill, but to infer Oladipo is that much better than Ibaka is even moreso...and that's coming from a fan of Dipo.

If this is the expectation Orlando fans will be disappointed with Ibaka's limited ball skills. Sliding him to 5 would mitigate the weakness but it's not something he's done regularly. That's without addressing UFA status, age v. Oladipo, higher potential max, and drop the past 2 seasons. BTW Oladipo projects top 40 this season.

Not an OKC fan - in fact I was very critical of the backlash against Durant - but there's no getting around Orlando's brutal last 6 months.

Ibaka:
VORP: 113th
RPM: 103rd
Projected WARP: 2.3 (average starter, descending)

Oladipo
VORP: 45th
RPM: 40th
Projected WARP: 5.1 (future all-star, leveling)