Fall of 2020-21 OKC Thunder Offseason Thread- Rebuild or Maintain?

[retrobro90]

If the Thunder move of CP3 and only get expiring back they will have enough for 2 max guys in the Free Agency Frenzy of 21.

Antetokounmpo & Leonard to OKC in 2021????

Shai is the third fiddle. I guess one can dream....

This is not happening and they'd be foolish to prioritize keeping their powder dry for FA pitches. I'm really not allured by expirings for Paul for this reason. Better to have big contracts on the books in the case for trades down the line. Let other teams offload money in exchange for picks and young players.

I think you want expiring contracts. But, you want to flip those contracts for more picks and longer contracts.

Yeah totally. What you don't want is contracts expiring and evolving into nothing. Like hypothetically if JJ Reddick came back in a Paul deal I'd be happy because he'd be an asset for another team but I'd also like to retain a perpetual amount of salary that's basically in circulation (fiscally allowing yourself to turn useful salary around like reggie>kanter>melo>schroder or ibaka>dipo>george). Really all I'm saying is that it should hardly be a priority for OKC to make sure they have max cap room and they shouldn't pay a premium for that privilege. I'd rather get a first and a longer deal than an expiring and no first.

[retrobro90]

No. I don't think the Thunder are trying to create two max slots for free agents. But, if you watch these teams assemble one of the things that prevents them from being able to build a long term dynasty is the fact that they don't have assets to go get a shooter or a 7/ 8 th man that helps plug some holes or a guy who can run the 2nd unit.

The Thunder will have Dort, Bazley and Shai all under contract plus our 2020 first and the two 2021 first (2 best of OKC, Miami and Houston). Sprinkle in a couple of minimum guys it could be a roster that a super star could come aboard and have it take off.

But, the Thunder will most likely use space to take on guys to help the big market teams go sign a Giannis and who ever he wants.

The one interesting thing is every super star is build different. But, every new one now has the knowledge of how the last one went. If Giannis believes in what the Bucks can do he will stay. But, I can tell you he won't have the options KD had. When looking at everything OKC has everything Giannis would want and need in a franchise plus he could bring whoever he wanted with him. I know OKC usually does not go after FA's but Giannis is different and OKC has the assets to build around him for the next 10 years plus they know how to treat/ protect/ take care of a super star.

Sorry, reading this after reading your first reply. I don't really think they should/will be making a bid for Giannis but that's probably an entirely different conversation about Giannis that I'd rather not start lol. If I'm OKC I'm looking to rely on the draft and trades these next few years. Free agency should really only be useful for the dinosaurs of the league who want another 2.3mil to mentor. I think they need at least one legitimate bonafide all star talent before they start looking at big fish in FA and I don't think they have that currently. Will depend heavily on if their pick next year proves he's a stud or if Bazley turns into something special.

[spearsy23]

reggie>kanter>melo>schroder

I've posted this on here before, but that lineage can actually be traced all the way back to Jack sikma. It's the longest in the league I believe.

[slick_watts]

reggie>kanter>melo>schroder

I've posted this on here before, but that lineage can actually be traced all the way back to Jack sikma. It's the longest in the league I believe.

i checked this out and it's super cool. sikma -> lister -> payton (via draft pick) -> allen -> green -> perkins -> kanter -> anthony -> schroder.

[Balkman32]

No. I don't think the Thunder are trying to create two max slots for free agents. But, if you watch these teams assemble one of the things that prevents them from being able to build a long term dynasty is the fact that they don't have assets to go get a shooter or a 7/ 8 th man that helps plug some holes or a guy who can run the 2nd unit.

The Thunder will have Dort, Bazley and Shai all under contract plus our 2020 first and the two 2021 first (2 best of OKC, Miami and Houston). Sprinkle in a couple of minimum guys it could be a roster that a super star could come aboard and have it take off.

But, the Thunder will most likely use space to take on guys to help the big market teams go sign a Giannis and who ever he wants.

The one interesting thing is every super star is build different. But, every new one now has the knowledge of how the last one went. If Giannis believes in what the Bucks can do he will stay. But, I can tell you he won't have the options KD had. When looking at everything OKC has everything Giannis would want and need in a franchise plus he could bring whoever he wanted with him. I know OKC usually does not go after FA's but Giannis is different and OKC has the assets to build around him for the next 10 years plus they know how to treat/ protect/ take care of a super star.

Sorry, reading this after reading your first reply. I don't really think they should/will be making a bid for Giannis but that's probably an entirely different conversation about Giannis that I'd rather not start lol. If I'm OKC I'm looking to rely on the draft and trades these next few years. Free agency should really only be useful for the dinosaurs of the league who want another 2.3mil to mentor. I think they need at least one legitimate bonafide all star talent before they start looking at big fish in FA and I don't think they have that currently. Will depend heavily on if their pick next year proves he's a stud or if Bazley turns into something special.

This is not the way you build your team. But, guys are starting to think differently. What if Giannis sees all of those draft picks, the Thunder hit the lottery and get Cunningham and Giannis knows he can continue to go get himself the guys he needs. The idea is to not be good to get the super star. But, if you can sell the super star to bring his robin and look at all roster that's already in place. It could set up Giannis with a robin now, a robin later and a batman to pass the torch to all while continuing to win.

The Thunder had this layered plan for KD. I am not saying the main goal is to free up money to get in the Giannis sweepstakes. But, the Thunder should be in a position to bring him on if there was interest and if not be in position to eat some contracts of the winning bidders.

[retrobro90]

No. I don't think the Thunder are trying to create two max slots for free agents. But, if you watch these teams assemble one of the things that prevents them from being able to build a long term dynasty is the fact that they don't have assets to go get a shooter or a 7/ 8 th man that helps plug some holes or a guy who can run the 2nd unit.

The Thunder will have Dort, Bazley and Shai all under contract plus our 2020 first and the two 2021 first (2 best of OKC, Miami and Houston). Sprinkle in a couple of minimum guys it could be a roster that a super star could come aboard and have it take off.

But, the Thunder will most likely use space to take on guys to help the big market teams go sign a Giannis and who ever he wants.

The one interesting thing is every super star is build different. But, every new one now has the knowledge of how the last one went. If Giannis believes in what the Bucks can do he will stay. But, I can tell you he won't have the options KD had. When looking at everything OKC has everything Giannis would want and need in a franchise plus he could bring whoever he wanted with him. I know OKC usually does not go after FA's but Giannis is different and OKC has the assets to build around him for the next 10 years plus they know how to treat/ protect/ take care of a super star.

Sorry, reading this after reading your first reply. I don't really think they should/will be making a bid for Giannis but that's probably an entirely different conversation about Giannis that I'd rather not start lol. If I'm OKC I'm looking to rely on the draft and trades these next few years. Free agency should really only be useful for the dinosaurs of the league who want another 2.3mil to mentor. I think they need at least one legitimate bonafide all star talent before they start looking at big fish in FA and I don't think they have that currently. Will depend heavily on if their pick next year proves he's a stud or if Bazley turns into something special.

the Thunder should be in a position to bring him on if there was interest and if not be in position to eat some contracts of the winning bidders.

I think they can do either if that opportunity presents itself. Keeping a circulating high salary filler only helps flexibility imo as a trade is always going to be more likely in OKC's roster construction. If Giannis or someone of his calibre decided they wanted to come to OKC then they can move money around in order to do so. Part of the luxury of having a giant war chest of picks is that you could always attach one or two to dump money on the knicks etc. This all seems too hypothetical/farfetched though given none of our picks/players have manifested into something apparent and urgent to build around.

[jake_swivel]

I think they can do either if that opportunity presents itself. Keeping a circulating high salary filler only helps flexibility imo as a trade is always going to be more likely in OKC's roster construction. If Giannis or someone of his calibre decided they wanted to come to OKC then they can move money around in order to do so. Part of the luxury of having a giant war chest of picks is that you could always attach one or two to dump money on the knicks etc. This all seems too hypothetical/farfetched though given none of our picks/players have manifested into something apparent and urgent to build around.

I'm not understanding how high circulating salary is better for flexibility than pure cap space.

[Andre Roberstan]

I think they can do either if that opportunity presents itself. Keeping a circulating high salary filler only helps flexibility imo as a trade is always going to be more likely in OKC's roster construction. If Giannis or someone of his calibre decided they wanted to come to OKC then they can move money around in order to do so. Part of the luxury of having a giant war chest of picks is that you could always attach one or two to dump money on the knicks etc. This all seems too hypothetical/farfetched though given none of our picks/players have manifested into something apparent and urgent to build around.

I'm not understanding how high circulating salary is better for flexibility than pure cap space.

So...this gets into more salary cap minutiae, but it's nice to have some middle and high-tier salaries that aren't completely untradeable because it makes it possible to do more salary matches in trades.

Take Milwaukee, for example. If they'd matched Brogdon for one they'd be a better team, but for two they'd have a salary that was easily movable for something like even a CP3 contract without having to add tons and tons of extra guys. Instead they'd have to put together like 4 or 5 guys to make a deal possible.

If you look at most teams that aren't literally championship or bust (and even some that are) you'll see a reasonably wide salary spread for teams that operate over the cap. A lot of teams operate over the cap because you pretty much have to be an over the cap team to contend (if not over the tax). When you're over the cap, mid-size and large salaries that match for high-end players are nice to have, especially if you're asset-rich and most of the value of a trade would be in picks.

[jake_swivel]

I think they can do either if that opportunity presents itself. Keeping a circulating high salary filler only helps flexibility imo as a trade is always going to be more likely in OKC's roster construction. If Giannis or someone of his calibre decided they wanted to come to OKC then they can move money around in order to do so. Part of the luxury of having a giant war chest of picks is that you could always attach one or two to dump money on the knicks etc. This all seems too hypothetical/farfetched though given none of our picks/players have manifested into something apparent and urgent to build around.

I'm not understanding how high circulating salary is better for flexibility than pure cap space.

So...this gets into more salary cap minutiae, but it's nice to have some middle and high-tier salaries that aren't completely untradeable because it makes it possible to do more salary matches in trades.

Take Milwaukee, for example. If they'd matched Brogdon for one they'd be a better team, but for two they'd have a salary that was easily movable for something like even a CP3 contract without having to add tons and tons of extra guys. Instead they'd have to put together like 4 or 5 guys to make a deal possible.

If you look at most teams that aren't literally championship or bust (and even some that are) you'll see a reasonably wide salary spread for teams that operate over the cap. A lot of teams operate over the cap because you pretty much have to be an over the cap team to contend (if not over the tax). When you're over the cap, mid-size and large salaries that match for high-end players are nice to have, especially if you're asset-rich and most of the value of a trade would be in picks.

But if the thunder were to get out from under CPs contract, they wouldn’t be trying to operate over the cap anymore. Outside of CP, they currently only have $13 million in salary in 21-22. In that scenario, without having to take back long term salary (which would be the point), wouldn’t that provide more flexibility?

[retrobro90]

I'm not understanding how high circulating salary is better for flexibility than pure cap space.

So...this gets into more salary cap minutiae, but it's nice to have some middle and high-tier salaries that aren't completely untradeable because it makes it possible to do more salary matches in trades.

Take Milwaukee, for example. If they'd matched Brogdon for one they'd be a better team, but for two they'd have a salary that was easily movable for something like even a CP3 contract without having to add tons and tons of extra guys. Instead they'd have to put together like 4 or 5 guys to make a deal possible.

If you look at most teams that aren't literally championship or bust (and even some that are) you'll see a reasonably wide salary spread for teams that operate over the cap. A lot of teams operate over the cap because you pretty much have to be an over the cap team to contend (if not over the tax). When you're over the cap, mid-size and large salaries that match for high-end players are nice to have, especially if you're asset-rich and most of the value of a trade would be in picks.

But if the thunder were to get out from under CPs contract, they wouldn’t be trying to operate over the cap anymore. Outside of CP, they currently only have $13 million in salary in 21-22. In that scenario, without having to take back long term salary (which would be the point), wouldn’t that provide more flexibility?

They're not going to just have 13mil committed for that season. The real issue is as Roberstan says with matching salary for trades (way more likely than FA signings at least in OKCs short term future). It's much more appealing for the team(s) you're trading with to not force them to make other roster decisions because you have to package 4-5 guys as opposed to 1-2. Additionally, it's not good investment strategy to let your assets expire. Suppose OKC has tons of cap space but no real pull in a free agency class: what do they do with that space when Sam has to travel to Wisconsin personally to get Mike Muscala to sign a two year deal? (When they still had Russ and PG on the roster). These are the scenarios that lead NYK to sign a full roster of PFs to 1+1 deals.

[thor19]

what do you think of a player like Malik Beasley? He play good with the twolves and is only 23 yeard old

[jake_swivel]

They're not going to just have 13mil committed for that season. The real issue is as Roberstan says with matching salary for trades (way more likely than FA signings at least in OKCs short term future). It's much more appealing for the team(s) you're trading with to not force them to make other roster decisions because you have to package 4-5 guys as opposed to 1-2. Additionally, it's not good investment strategy to let your assets expire. Suppose OKC has tons of cap space but no real pull in a free agency class: what do they do with that space when Sam has to travel to Wisconsin personally to get Mike Muscala to sign a two year deal? (When they still had Russ and PG on the roster). These are the scenarios that lead NYK to sign a full roster of PFs to 1+1 deals.

Obviously they aren’t going to stay at 13 million. But I also don’t think they necessarily will be looking to sign any long term contracts this offseason. It’s not out of the realm of likelihood that they are 40 million under the cap going into the summer of 21-22. That puts them in a situation to take advantage of teams trying to clear cap to sign free agents package picks or young players like Miami did to sign butler. Or like we did to get out from carmelo’s contract to Atlanta. It also makes you an attractive third party at the trade deadline.

And I don’t really see a problem with what the knicks did if you can do it with better roster balance. They weren’t forced to do the 1 + 1’s with all PFs. Their management has just been inept for 20 years. They got a pick out of Marcus Morris, and there are lots of opportunities like that with short term contracts of slightly overpaid players when contenders are trying to shore up their roster.

[retrobro90]

They're not going to just have 13mil committed for that season. The real issue is as Roberstan says with matching salary for trades (way more likely than FA signings at least in OKCs short term future). It's much more appealing for the team(s) you're trading with to not force them to make other roster decisions because you have to package 4-5 guys as opposed to 1-2. Additionally, it's not good investment strategy to let your assets expire. Suppose OKC has tons of cap space but no real pull in a free agency class: what do they do with that space when Sam has to travel to Wisconsin personally to get Mike Muscala to sign a two year deal? (When they still had Russ and PG on the roster). These are the scenarios that lead NYK to sign a full roster of PFs to 1+1 deals.

Obviously they aren’t going to stay at 13 million. But I also don’t think they necessarily will be looking to sign any long term contracts this offseason. It’s not out of the realm of likelihood that they are 40 million under the cap going into the summer of 21-22. That puts them in a situation to take advantage of teams trying to clear cap to sign free agents package picks or young players like Miami did to sign butler. Or like we did to get out from carmelo’s contract to Atlanta. It also makes you an attractive third party at the trade deadline.

And I don’t really see a problem with what the knicks did if you can do it with better roster balance. They weren’t forced to do the 1 + 1’s with all PFs. Their management has just been inept for 20 years. They got a pick out of Marcus Morris, and there are lots of opportunities like that with short term contracts of slightly overpaid players when contenders are trying to shore up their roster.

These are all fair points and some that I have echoed in regards to valuable expirings that can flipped a la Morris (or I used Reddick as an example in an earlier post). The trouble is that youre not always going to find suitors for your expirings and they well...expire. Not every expiring is equal and not exchanging one asset for another makes for a net loss in value. When I brought up not prioritizing expiring deals over picks in the initial discussion is for the exact reason you say about using your cap to take on bad money in exchange for liquid assets or young players. It doesnt matter how you do it just so long as the cycle continues. I think thats easier to explore with a cyclical mid/high dollar deals as not every offseason has teams clamoring to offload bad money. Theres less bad deals now than there was after the summer of 2016.

[WestbrookGOATed]

what do you think of a player like Malik Beasley? He play good with the twolves and is only 23 yeard old

I like Beasley alot. Would love to bring him in.

[WestbrookGOATed]

I've been thinking about the Giannis sweepstakes too. We definitely have assets to get him, if the Bucks trade him they'll be entering a rebuild so those picks would be very valuable to them. But I'm not sure what his salary looks like and what player/s we would have to give up to get him. Then we would have to sell him on OKC like Paul George. Would be a big risk. I was messing around on 2k the other night and I traded CP3 to Philly for Matisse Thybulle and I think Horford and a 1st. My starting lineup was

SGA
Thybulle
Bazley
Giannis
Adams

We won 65 games and went 16-2 in the playoffs and got Giannis a chip lol. Then Kawhi signed and we won 3 more and made 6 finals.. One can dream lol.

[jake_swivel]

These are all fair points and some that I have echoed in regards to valuable expirings that can flipped a la Morris (or I used Reddick as an example in an earlier post). The trouble is that youre not always going to find suitors for your expirings and they well...expire. Not every expiring is equal and not exchanging one asset for another makes for a net loss in value. When I brought up not prioritizing expiring deals over picks in the initial discussion is for the exact reason you say about using your cap to take on bad money in exchange for liquid assets or young players. It doesnt matter how you do it just so long as the cycle continues. I think thats easier to explore with a cyclical mid/high dollar deals as not every offseason has teams clamoring to offload bad money. Theres less bad deals now than there was after the summer of 2016.

The difference, it seems to me, is that although both of our models give the Thunder flexibility, your model has them being more competitive while spending the going rate and mine has them not trying to be competitive and spending less money. The reason I'd like to not be competitive is because it raises the value of the Thunder's own draft picks, which can then be raised further by trading the backlog of acquired picks. It's the difference between trying to trade up from the 5-8 range or the 7-10 range.

Further, my model gives management a fiscal-breather after going over the cap in the russ/PG/melo-era, which, as a small market team, feels probably necessary. There are always non-basketball factors to consider, and I think the reduced fans next season and the political considerations could substantially lower revenue.

[retrobro90]

These are all fair points and some that I have echoed in regards to valuable expirings that can flipped a la Morris (or I used Reddick as an example in an earlier post). The trouble is that youre not always going to find suitors for your expirings and they well...expire. Not every expiring is equal and not exchanging one asset for another makes for a net loss in value. When I brought up not prioritizing expiring deals over picks in the initial discussion is for the exact reason you say about using your cap to take on bad money in exchange for liquid assets or young players. It doesnt matter how you do it just so long as the cycle continues. I think thats easier to explore with a cyclical mid/high dollar deals as not every offseason has teams clamoring to offload bad money. Theres less bad deals now than there was after the summer of 2016.

The difference, it seems to me, is that although both of our models give the Thunder flexibility, your model has them being more competitive while spending the going rate and mine has them not trying to be competitive and spending less money. The reason I'd like to not be competitive is because it raises the value of the Thunder's own draft picks, which can then be raised further by trading the backlog of acquired picks. It's the difference between trying to trade up from the 5-8 range or the 7-10 range.

Further, my model gives management a fiscal-breather after going over the cap in the russ/PG/melo-era, which, as a small market team, feels probably necessary. There are always non-basketball factors to consider, and I think the reduced fans next season and the political considerations could substantially lower revenue.

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here. Having a mid to high salary player doesn't automatically make you more competitive and better. That contract could be anyone from an overpaid mentor vet like Adams/Horford, to an overpaid guy that takes wins/shots away from your team like Wiggins/Barnes/Tobias, to completely dead money Batum/Wall etc. You've even suggested they use that capspace to take on money for picks. I'm suggesting the same thing here; only that they don't wait till they have open space to utilize that strategy. Also they still have to reach the cap floor in any scenario. Having a "bad" mid to high salary in one player allows them to more feasibly fill out their roster with cheap/worse players.

[getrichordie]

Yeah having a veteran leader on a big salary does offer more flexibility in terms of future contention purposes. You need a big salary to trade in conjunction with prospects/picks if you are going to go all-in, but I think we have time to to make a trade work that fits the bill since Adams can be traded at deadline.

[LoveMyRaps]

What are the chances OKC re-sign Noel?

[retrobro90]

What are the chances OKC re-sign Noel?

Low. Hes probably looking at minimum deals with contenders next year. Could maybe get something in the 5-7mil range to go to a team with capspace to do so. Doubt a contender spends the TPMLE on him. OKC would probably rather have that roster spot for a young player.