NBA Off-Season 2019 - Bridge Over the River Kawhi

[Maithanet]

I think that OKC made another absolute steal with this trade.  Westbrook's combination of style, personality, declining athleticism and atrocious contract made it so that most teams weren't interested in taking him at any price.  Reports were that only the Pistons, Heat and Rockets were truly interested.  OKC is just astonishingly stacked with draft capital.  If they tank for a couple of years to get some young pieces, they'll absolutely be able to trade for a star in 2021 or so and be right back to contending. 

In addition, I think that Paul and his contract is more tradeable than Westbrook was.  Yes, he's older and more clearly in decline, but his skill set of great passing, gritty defense and 3 point shooting will fit on any contending team that doesn't already have an all-star PG.   I could definitely imagine Paul getting traded to Miami or something in exchange for one of their young players and an expiring contract. 

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

Those picks are so far away from now that they have almost no value.

Are you applying for the Wizards GM position?  Because with talk like that, you'll fit right in.

 

 

[Maithanet]

On the other side of the trade, I honestly don't know why the Rockets did this.  Maybe the Paul/Harden drama was worse than we all assumed?  Because to me the Rockets look worse today than they did yesterday, and they traded 2 firsts, 2 swaps, and took on an additional year of a horrible contract to get it. 

Westbrook and Harden are like the dictionary definition of a bad NBA fit.  Both players are really bad without the ball in their hands.  Neither are good defenders.  Both are so ball dominant that it's hard to imagine either one passing to the other readily.  And since both will be seeing the ball less, that also means fewer looks for their 3 point shooters, which is the backbone of this offense.  Even if you assume that Westbrook makes some compromises of his style and cuts down on midrange jumpers, he's still a bad 3 point shooter, which means he's like a dead spot on the court when Harden has the ball. 

I feel like with the Harden/Paul Rockets, you could see a realistic, (if difficult) path to an NBA title.  They match up reasonably well with LAL, DEN and PHI.  LAC is clearly a problem, but who knows, maybe someone else beats them or someone gets injured.  Can you say the same thing about the Westbrook/Harden Rockets?  I cannot see that team beating any real contender in a 7 game series.  A second round exit is like the best case scenario now. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

This is such a strange trade. The Thunder wanted to get out of one of the three worst contracts in the league, so they acquired another one of the three worst contracts in the league. But I guess those picks do have a ton of value consider Houston will probably be bad in 2026. And Houston, WTF? Westbrook is better, but he’ll age worse, and he’s a terrible fit. I guess that’s how bad the beef was between Harden and CP3.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, Fez said:

Those picks are so far away from now that they have almost no value.

Are you serious? Those picks have MONSTER value. The Rockets are so leveraged, and the most likely scenario is that they're terrible in that stretch of time. And now the Thunder have something like 15 first rounders over a seven year period, and a number of them look to be quite valuable. 

[Fez]

31 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Are you applying for the Wizards GM position?  Because with talk like that, you'll fit right in.

Tell me how a draft pick 7 years from now helps a team now? It has no value except as a trade asset, but other teams know that too, so you can't get much for it.

You can't play a pick (obviously), but you also can't rebuild or plan around a pick that far out because you have no idea what kinds of players might be available. If it was there 2020 draft, that'd be one thing, there's a lot that's known there already. But 2026? What if it's like 2013? Depending on how you feel about Victor Oladipo, Giannis was the only good player to come out of that draft. Something like that would make the pick a total wash.

Focusing just on getting trade assets rather than on what actually makes your team better is no way to be a GM. Assets are important, but they aren't the only thing. Danny Ainge has focused on almost exclusively on building up the Celtics trade assets for years now, and it's gotten him nothing and nowhere.

On top of that, as this past offseason has shown, the NBA is more volatile than ever and you can't count on what you have staying for long. If the Thunder draft an all-NBA player next year, there's pretty good odds he won't be on the team anymore by 2026. You can't long-term plan like that anymore. If you have a top player on your team you need to focus on winning now. The Thunder should've told Westbrook to just hold tight for a year, compile some stats and maybe be frisky in the first round of the playoffs (which I still think they'd get to even without Paul George), and that they'll use their assets from the Paul George trade (plus free agency) to stock up next offseason for a championship run.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

Tell me how a draft pick 7 years from now helps a team now? It has no value except as a trade asset, but other teams know that too, so you can't get much for it.

You can't play a pick (obviously), but you also can't rebuild or plan around a pick that far out because you have no idea what kinds of players might be available. If it was there 2020 draft, that'd be one thing, there's a lot that's known there already. But 2026? What if it's like 2013? Depending on how you feel about Victor Oladipo, Giannis was the only good player to come out of that draft. Something like that would make the pick a total wash.

Focusing just on getting trade assets rather than on what actually makes your team better is no way to be a GM. Assets are important, but they aren't the only thing. Danny Ainge has focused on almost exclusively on building up the Celtics trade assets for years now, and it's gotten him nothing and nowhere.

On top of that, as this past offseason has shown, the NBA is more volatile than ever and you can't count on what you have staying for long. If the Thunder draft an all-NBA player next year, there's pretty good odds he won't be on the team anymore by 2026. You can't long-term plan like that anymore. If you have a top player on your team you need to focus on winning now. The Thunder should've told Westbrook to just hold tight for a year, compile some stats and maybe be frisky in the first round of the playoffs (which I still think they'd get to even without Paul George), and that they'll use their assets from the Paul George trade (plus free agency) to stock up next offseason for a championship run.

Er...what? This is a complete tear down dude. And the best assets you can get are picks, even if they are far out. The Thunder are going full "Trust the process." 

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

Focusing just on getting trade assets rather than on what actually makes your team better is no way to be a GM. Assets are important, but they aren't the only thing. Danny Ainge has focused on almost exclusively on building up the Celtics trade assets for years now, and it's gotten him nothing and nowhere.

On top of that, as this past offseason has shown, the NBA is more volatile than ever and you can't count on what you have staying for long. If the Thunder draft an all-NBA player next year, there's pretty good odds he won't be on the team anymore by 2026. You can't long-term plan like that anymore. If you have a top player on your team you need to focus on winning now. The Thunder should've told Westbrook to just hold tight for a year, compile some stats and maybe be frisky in the first round of the playoffs (which I still think they'd get to even without Paul George), and that they'll use their assets from the Paul George trade (plus free agency) to stock up next offseason for a championship run.

Danny Ainge should have used his trade assets to get one great player to build around, like Davis or Leonard.  He balked at the price in both cases, which in retrospect looks like a clear mistake.  No reason to assume that Presti will make the same mistake.

If the Thunder are lucky enough to get an All-NBA guy then it will take a few years for him to really get his footing in the NBA (this is true of essentially all great players).  And by that time (say, 2022), those picks in 2023 through 2026 will be much more valuable than they are today.  He can package them with any team that has a disgruntled all star and presto, you've got two stars and a contending team.  The Thunder position isn't as great as say, the Warriors or Clippers (they actually have the pieces in place now), but there are 15-20 teams in the NBA that would love to trade positions with them.  And considering what a shitty position OKC was prior to this offseason (going nowhere with an aging Westbrook and a disgruntled George), that's incredible.  

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Er...what? This is a complete tear down dude. And the best assets you can get are picks, even if they are far out. The Thunder are going full "Trust the process." 

Exactly. And complete tear downs are a terrible idea. Look at the champions from the past 20 years, how many won because of "the process":

2019 Raptors- Nope, they went the opposite direction, giving up assets to get an established star

2018, 17, and 15 Warriors- Nope. Durant and Iggy were FAs. Draymond was a 2nd round pick, no process there. Curry and Klay were first rounders, but the Warriors weren't undergoing a process to get them; they had just been bad.

2016 Cavs- Nope. That was LeBron being LeBron and the Cavs stumbling into Kyrie despite their incompetence.

2014 Spurs- Nope. They were keeping the same core they'd had going for ages and had drafted Kawhi.

2013 and 2012 Heat- Nope. All FAs.

2011 Mavs- Nope. They'd been a perennial playoff team for a decade and finally had gotten enough pieces together; plus they caught the Heat before they were fully gelled.

2010 and 2009 Lakers- Nope. Its true that they were bad from 2004 to 2006 after Shaq left. But they wisely refused Kobe's demands for a trade because they knew the odds of getting that value from the draft were so low. They got good again going the opposite direction, giving up assets to get Pau Gasol. And it was assets they had naturally accumulated, not the result of a tear down.

2008 Celtics- Maybe; at best. The Celtics did partially tear-down from 2005 to 2007 and that helped get them the assets to bring in Garnett and Allen. However, they never traded away Pierce; it was not a complete rebuild.

2007, 2005, and 2003 Spurs- Nope. The Spurs got lucky that the one year David Robinson got injured and they had a losing record, was the year they could draft Tim Duncan. But other than 1997, they've had a winning record and made the playoffs every year since 1990.

2006 Heat- Maybe. They were pretty terrible back in 2002 and 2003 and that got them into a position to draft Wade. And they also made some trades that helped them get the assets to trade for Shaq. But those two years were more a function of Alonzo Mourning being unable to play than the Heat trying to go through a rebuild.

2004 Pistons- Nope. They were an already good team that got better by bringing in Rasheed Wallace. Though they weren't exactly thinking that'd make them the champions, beating the Lakers was a big upset.

2002, 2001, and 2000 Lakers- Nope. They'd already been a good team, with 5 straight play-off runs. They signed Shaq as a free agent, and they got Kobe from Charlotte for really very little.

1999 Spurs- Nope. Already covered.

That's two maybes and a whole lot of nopes. The big tear down and tanking sounds like a good idea, but its not what leads to champions. Champions aggressively hold on to what they've got and trade their future to make it better. And these days, with championship windows being smaller than ever, the present becomes even more important.

[DanteGabriel]

This tweet aged well:

 

[Jaime L]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Oh, give me a break.  First, the swaps - especially the first in 2021 - might not matter at all.  The overvaluation of midlevel draft picks by NBA's intelligentsia is amusing to an extent, but I'm sorry, those picks are unlikely to matter much at all.  Second, two picks that far away along with a guy they would gladly release if they could?  And now I'm sure OKC is trying to figure out how to move him?  Yeah, that is low.

Presti would chuckle at that. He built his first contender entirely on draft picks. Both high first rounders (Durant, Westbrook, Harden) and low (Ibaka, Adams). I think he'll be okay wherever these picks land, but just between you and me, a couple of those picks are likely to be absolutely killer. 

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Are you applying for the Wizards GM position?  Because with talk like that, you'll fit right in.

Lol. As a Wizards fan it couldn't be clearer to me what happens when you don't value future picks. 

39 minutes ago, Fez said:

That's two maybes and a whole lot of nopes. The big tear down and tanking sounds like a good idea, but its not what leads to champions. Champions aggressively hold on to what they've got and trade their future to make it better. And these days, with championship windows being smaller than ever, the present becomes even more important.

"The Process" has only been a thing since Philly undertook it 2014ish. And guess what they built a top 3 contender out of it.

But the Spurs dynasty only existed because they tanked for Duncan. The Cavs won their title because they tanked enough to win 3 lotteries and have enough assets to convince Lebron to return there, draft Kyrie and trade for Love. The Warriors were a playoff team in 2007, but that didn't set the stage for their dynasty. No that come from drafting well with lottery picks (Curry, Klay) and hitting on an incredible 2nd rounder (Green) and building from the absolute ground up over a 5 year period. Every contender ever, even the Lakers, have only built championships teams by hitting on draft picks and accruing valuable assets either for their own use or to be traded. Kinda blown away people are arguing against this. 

Whether you tear it down to the nuts and bolts or only most of the way depends on your specific situation. But the key thing is tearing it down so that you have access to getting elite players which for 90% of the NBA only comes through the draft. And when you're OKC and you have a rapidly depreciating asset like Russell Westbrook who is maybe only a year or two from becoming an out and out liability but can only hurt your draft positioning in the meantime, you absolutely trade him now and maximize the return you get for him while he still has value. 

And above all that Presti has already tried to keep it going with Westbrook. First by teaming him up with Oladipo and then with George. And all he's gotten for it was 3 straight first round exits none of which were particularly close. OKC was on a complete dead end track and deep in the luxury tax to boot. 

No-one is more justified to blow this up....and no-one is more qualified to turn these draft assets into the next great contender. This is a slam dunk. 

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

Presti would chuckle at that. He built his first contender entirely on draft picks. Both high first rounders (Durant, Westbrook, Harden) and low (Ibaka, Adams). I think he'll be okay wherever these picks land, but just between you and me, a couple of those picks are likely to be absolutely killer. 

Lol. As a Wizards fan it couldn't be clearer to me what happens when you don't value future picks. 

"The Process" has only been a thing since Philly undertook it 2014ish. And guess what they built a top 3 contender out of it.

But the Spurs dynasty only existed because they tanked for Duncan. The Cavs won their title because they tanked enough to win 3 lotteries and have enough assets to convince Lebron to return there, draft Kyrie and trade for Love. The Warriors were a playoff team in 2007, but that didn't set the stage for their dynasty. No that come from drafting well with lottery picks (Curry, Klay) and hitting on an incredible 2nd rounder (Green) and building from the absolute ground up over a 5 year period. Every contender ever, even the Lakers, have only built championships teams by hitting on draft picks and accruing valuable assets either for their own use or to be traded. Kinda blown away people are arguing against this. 

Whether you tear it down to the nuts and bolts or only most of the way depends on your specific situation. But the key thing is tearing it down so that you have access to getting elite players which for 90% of the NBA only comes through the draft. And when you're OKC and you have a rapidly depreciating asset like Russell Westbrook who is maybe only a year or two from becoming an out and out liability but can only hurt your draft positioning in the meantime, you absolutely trade him now and maximize the return you get for him while he still has value. 

And above all that Presti has already tried to keep it going with Westbrook. First by teaming him up with Oladipo and then with George. And all he's gotten for it was 3 straight first round exits none of which were particularly close. OKC was on a complete dead end track and deep in the luxury tax to boot. 

No-one is more justified to blow this up....and no-one is more qualified to turn these draft assets into the next great contender. This is a slam dunk. 

First, the Spurs absolutely did not tank for Duncan; they just sucked because Davis Robinson was hurt.

Second, the term "the process" is new, but the idea of tearing it all down and rebuilding is very old.

Third, I'm not saying future picks have no value, I'm saying picks 7 years out have very little value. And what you give up to get those picks often has a lot of value; so you need to get a lot back for it to be worth it.

Fourth, I'm not a Wizards fan but I live in DC, so I somewhat follow the team. Their problems are much deeper than issues with the draft; a big one being giving a massive contract to a guy with a long history of injury problems, who promptly got injured.

Fifth, yes, drafting well is absolutely important. But it is not so important that you should give up your your key established players to get more picks. I'm not talking about trading away middle of the road guys, rotation guys you need on a champion, I'm talking about top 20 players in the league. None of the champions in the past 20 years ever did that to launch a rebuild. The Thunder just did it twice. Now, I get the Paul George trade. Clearly the team as constructed wasn't working, and he and Westbrook were apparently having issues, so trade him. And they got a ton of assets for him, far more than they got for Westbrook. That trade makes sense. But now that you have all those assets, and you still have a top-20 guy, you use those assets to try to win. Or you get another overwhelming haul for him, so high that you have to do it, which they didn't get. Instead, the Thunder are about to go through a long, difficult process to maybe in 4 years be as good as they were last year. No guarantees though.

Sixth, yes, Presti tried twice and it didn't work. And Westbrook specifically may not be someone you can build a champion around. However, trying twice doesn't really mean you've exhausted your possibilities; and the Thunder have some other good pieces on their team already.

Considering how vital superstars are to winning in the NBA, and how difficult they are to obtain, I'm astonished at how happily some people are to trade them away. If I were Daryl Morey, I'd be laughing my ass off at this trade. Not only did I give up almost nothing that affects my championship window, I managed to dump my other bad contract so my cap situation didn't get any worse.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Fez said:

Third, I'm not saying future picks have no value, I'm saying picks 7 years out have very little value. 

And you would be wrong. It doesn’t have little value, it has unknown value, and consider the team in question who traded it is likely to be bad then, I’d say it’s a nice asset to have. The Thunder literally have 15 first rounders in the next seven drafts, and they’re likely to dump Paul for another pick or two if a team is dumb enough to do it. 

(cough, Lakers, cough)

Then they’d be a Melo and Wade signing away from making Team Banana Boat happen. It’s all fetch baby!

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Jaime L said:

Presti would chuckle at that. He built his first contender entirely on draft picks. Both high first rounders (Durant, Westbrook, Harden) and low (Ibaka, Adams). I think he'll be okay wherever these picks land, but just between you and me, a couple of those picks are likely to be absolutely killer. 

First, Presti built what he did largely with his own picks, which were very good because his team was so bad.  Two picks in 5-7 years is different than hitting the lotto on Durant, Westbrook, and Harden, which were 2, 4, and 3.  Those aren't the picks Presti is getting.  Second, where's the ring on Presti's finger?  Oh, right, it's just from his job as an errand boy with the Spurs.

[Jaime L]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Fourth, I'm not a Wizards fan but I live in DC, so I somewhat follow the team. Their problems are much deeper than issues with the draft; a big one being giving a massive contract to a guy with a long history of injury problems, who promptly got injured.

So disagree with a lot of what you said but just want to focus on what's nearest and dearest to my heart. The Wizards are the end result of what you're advocating. Or the Knicks with Melo. Or the Nets with Deron Williams. Who cares about future picks? Keep reloading, keep trying to maximize yourself in the moment because you have a star or two as everything erodes around those stars. Pretty soon you're left with nothing. And a team so asset poor true stars don't even look your way. 

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you would be wrong. It doesn’t have little value, it has unknown value, and consider the team in question who traded it is likely to be bad then, I’d say it’s a nice asset to have. The Thunder literally have 15 first rounders in the next seven drafts, and they’re likely to dump Paul for another pick or two if a team is dumb enough to do it. 

(cough, Lakers, cough)

Then they’d be a Melo and Wade signing away from making Team Banana Boat happen. It’s all fetch baby!

Their 2047 first rounder is still available! 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

So disagree with a lot of what you said but just want to focus on what's nearest and dearest to my heart. The Wizards are the end result of what you're advocating. Or the Knicks with Melo. Or the Nets with Deron Williams. Who cares about future picks? Keep reloading, keep trying to maximize yourself in the moment because you have a star or two as everything erodes around those stars. Pretty soon you're left with nothing. And a team so asset poor true stars don't even look your way. 

Their 2047 first rounder is still available! 

Post big 3 Heat, Lakers and Houston must have traded away 0756498745670549706 picks in the last four years.

[Fez]

30 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

So disagree with a lot of what you said but just want to focus on what's nearest and dearest to my heart. The Wizards are the end result of what you're advocating. Or the Knicks with Melo. Or the Nets with Deron Williams. Who cares about future picks? Keep reloading, keep trying to maximize yourself in the moment because you have a star or two as everything erodes around those stars. Pretty soon you're left with nothing. And a team so asset poor true stars don't even look your way. 

I'd argue that the Wizards, Knicks, and Nets are examples of teams doing what I'm saying, but completely sucking at player evaluation and/or being so dysfunctional as an organization that they can't get free agents to sign with them.

The flip side are the Spurs and the Raptors. Enough has been said about the Spurs, but let's look at the Raptors. They spent five years as constant also-rans, good enough to reach the playoffs and winning four playoff series in that time, but never being a real contender. This is supposedly the NBA dry-lands; the place you don't want to be, not good enough to win and not bad enough to get high draft picks. Lots of people have said the Raptors should rebuild, that should trade away Kyle Lowery and start the process. Instead, they kept the team together to keep trying and when opportunity came, they traded away assets for a one-year rental on Kawhi and won the title. Kawhi's gone now, but I bet every Raptor fan would take what happened 100 times out of a 100. If they'd gone the rebuilding route, they never would've been in a position to take advantage of the Spurs' situation and get Kawhi for a title run.

[Proudfeet]

The Raptors were also a four bounce three pointer away from crashing into a second round exit. 

I don't see what you guys are arguing over. Whether its the draft or trades or free agency, you can both succeed and fail. I don't think there is a specific reliable strategy either. You just do what you feel is appropriate for your situation. If you want to win a championship, you need to succeed on multiple fronts.

[DMC]

I agree that management of a team, any sports team, is more ad hoc than following any prescribed theory.  Every move should be evaluated individually.  OKC and Presti's strategy right now is to tank, so in that way it's nice they got a couple picks.  I just think anyone calling it a "steal" or extolling Presti's genius when he still had to take back Paul as well is kidding themselves.  Westbrook clearly had very little market, and - big picture - that's a huge loss for Presti considering all that he invested in Westbrook.

[Jaime L]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I'd argue that the Wizards, Knicks, and Nets are examples of teams doing what I'm saying, but completely sucking at player evaluation and/or being so dysfunctional as an organization that they can't get free agents to sign with them.

The flip side are the Spurs and the Raptors. Enough has been said about the Spurs, but let's look at the Raptors. They spent five years as constant also-rans, good enough to reach the playoffs and winning four playoff series in that time, but never being a real contender. This is supposedly the NBA dry-lands; the place you don't want to be, not good enough to win and not bad enough to get high draft picks. Lots of people have said the Raptors should rebuild, that should trade away Kyle Lowery and start the process. Instead, they kept the team together to keep trying and when opportunity came, they traded away assets for a one-year rental on Kawhi and won the title. Kawhi's gone now, but I bet every Raptor fan would take what happened 100 times out of a 100. If they'd gone the rebuilding route, they never would've been in a position to take advantage of the Spurs' situation and get Kawhi for a title run.

You know who else wanted the Raptors to rebuild? Masai Ujiri. That was his plan all along from the second he got there...but then Lowry/DeRozan turned them into a surprise 45-50 win team and he was forced to go with it. But he kept finding ways to add talent with low picks and when the opportunity to get a top 5 player, if even for one year, he broke it up for the chance at winning it all. In the end he played it perfectly and won a title. Was a ballsy, risky move and it paid off completely. He deserves a ton of credit for it.

And if he was GM of this OKC team, I guarantee you he does exactly what Presti just did. There's a time where a full rebuild is the only reasonable option and OKC was 100% at that point. 

[Red Tiger]

I am not really a fan of Chris Paul. I like him, sure, he was a fantastic player, the best point guard in the league for many years, but I was never truly a fan.

All that being said, I can't help but feel sadness and regret at his current state. His body is breaking down at a rapid pace, another team decided he wasn't worth keeping around, the last bit of title hope is not just fading away, it's almost completely gone. Meanwhile, his best friend in the whole world (who is actually older than him AND has more mileage on his legs) is healthy and in the position to win championship #4.

Damn, I feel for the guy, the Adam Morrisons of the world get chips, whereas he has never even been in a finals series.