A new little weekly feature we’re going to try. Throughout the week some of you drop some brilliant or at least thoughtful comments and so this is a try at highlighting some of them. Disclaimer: It’s not that I necessarily agree with all of them, but they were interesting and well put.
Not the blue or the red one – the poison one. (Steve H): “Landing Gortat this summer would have required the sort of “Poison Pill” offer that Portland tried with Millsap/Utah- and as their example showed, even then it might not work. I do not think Gortat would be worth the $8-10million per it would have taken, but he would be a fantastic acquisition at his current price of $6+ per. I love the pairing of him and Krstic – our starting unit should be able to score in bunches without significant offense from the five spot- what it lacks is interior defense and rebounding.
Our second unit (Livingston, Sefolosha, Green and White) looks like a better defensive unit over-all that could really benefit from Krstic’s shooting ability. I still have my fingers crossed about landing Gortat this December – Mullens and a first rounder? Throw in a second round pick? Gortat certainly looks solid, but Orlando paying out over 1 million per average minute (after tax) on the floor seems plain crazy.”
Bringing home the prodigal CP3. (DSMok1): “By Wins Produced, [Chris Paul] is worth all of the Thunder’s roster put together. Seriously. In fact, he is the best player in the NBA by Wins Produced (above LeBron, Howard, and Wade). In fact, he is only the second player to go above 29 wins produced in a season (after KG from ‘03 to ‘05) this decade. If he were available … well, get him! He just carried an abysmal team to the playoffs (only Chandler and Posey were even above average!). Put Chris Paul and KD together, wait a couple of years, assemble a few pieces, and you have a title team. Seriously. Next year, you’d have a playoff team–even if you gave up Westbrook and Jeff Green. You would have the best tandem in the league, bar none. Of course, trading CP3 would be suicide for the Hornets. They better not do it!”
Build all you want, at some point this thing has to get built. (Dan): “At some point the Thunder are going to be done rebuilding and start building a title contender. We have Westbrook and Durant solidified as starters for a long time, if Green gets bigger and keeps improving then he is the third long-term starter, andHarden is playing great and seems like a guy that will fit perfectly with Westbrook and Durant.
Assuming Harden works out and Green turns into a real PF, we have enough pieces of the puzzle that its time to start thinking about what we need acquire to be a title contender in 2-3 years. Drafting more rookies that take a couple years is not the way to fill those holes, unless they are extremely talented, because we won’t have the minutes to give them to speed up their learning curve. I think this is the year that Presti decides what the missing pieces are and gets them via trade in the next 12 months, using our $13.3 mil expiring contracts and lottery picks.”
Why didn’t I think of that? (Vince): “Why is Wilkins automatically on the active roster? Can’t he take the Robert Swift spot if he don’t buy him out? I’d rather see him in the inactive spot along with (for example) Mullens and Vaden, so the latter two can play in Tulsa while Wilkins gets almost $4 million for sitting next to the ice bucket in a fancy suit. I’m also not sure about Atkins getting bought out.
It’s only an extra $2M or so if I recall to keep him for the year, and are you really ready to spend 82 games with Weaver — who’s not a natural point — and Livingston — who never played close to 82 games even before he destroyed his knee — responsible for ~15 minutes a game at the 1? I know Atkins was HORRENDOUS last season but I think it’s a roll of the dice to face a full season with only Livingston and Weaver behind Russ. I think your odds are pretty good Royce. I think you’ll see Mullens and Vaden in Tulsa, with Wilkins inactive. If we buyout Wilkins and/or Atkins, we might bring Mullens up for some run with the big boys.”
A+A = … uh, A I guess. (Keith): “I actually think that, while Livingston has great talent, he and Westbrook don’t particularly complement each other. Westbrook is meant to be a strong defender and slasher, and hopefully a solid decision maker as time goes on. Livingston is a pass-first PG who doesn’t really shoot well from outside. As it is, they have overlapping skillsets. If Westbrook improves his passing and decision making as much as we hope, then Livingston’s contribution gives us nothing different at all. I think the plan is to grow Livingston’s value as a talented player, then use him in a trade for a more useful backup or a solid veteran. He’d be a great backup for a team like the Clippers or Wizards, teams with shoot first, rangy PGs who could use a more team oriented guy in spurts.”
I’m just glad they’re not following the Clipper model. (J.G.): “I would definitely agree that the Thunder fit the Spurs type of model, but so do the Trailblazers. In fact, since the beginning of this decade, almost every rebuilding effort has attempted to mimic the Spurs in some way, shape or form since “Three Stars and a team of role players” has kind of always been a championship model (see, Boston Celtics 2007-08, Los Angeles Lakers, 2008-09 and pretty much what everyone has been trying to do this off-season if they feel like they’re team is in the hunt: Orlando, Cleveland, Dallas, etc.)
What I find most interesting, and I hope it came across in the article, is that we really don’t have a good idea on what type of team the Thunder could become at this point because of all of the versatility and various style of players on the roster. Which is why this next season is so intriguing, plus, even if they’re not a mirror-image of this roster, the Trailblazers did set the bar on where you should be at in year three, so we can use the rough estimate of win-total (30-34) to gauge the overall progress of the franchise.”
@MartzMimic
No, don't get rid of the Venture Bros. quotes, I love them.
@MartzMimic
Hey, you never know....
I guess I'm going to have to start shooting for more substantive posts than Venture Bros. quotes and general off-the-wall comments if I'm to ever make the week in review :(
@Hornets__$__Life
David West is one of the most over-rated players in the NBA. He is good, but he is no All-Star. And for me to say that is surprising because I loved the Hornets. But If you insert an average pointgaurd in for CP3, the Hornets are Talking about drafting Blake Griffin, not winning Championships.
George Shinn is not looking to win, he is looking to stay in the black. He has gotten rid of good players before, and will do it again. With the economy in shambles, and NOLA hit harder than most, ticket sales will be way down. You are right, They should not trade CP3. But that doesn't mean they wont.
Hornets__$__Life :
Bringing home the prodigal CP3. (DSMok1)
this makes no sense at all
first off, new orleans would never ever trade chris paul unless he demanded a trade and would not play (something he would never do)
second, only chandler and posey were above average for the hornets? well first off, chandler played like garbage compared to his previous season, his 07-08 stats of 11 ppg and 11 rpg were dropped to 8 and 8, ontop of the fact that he only played 45 AND he showed a lack of effort that was ridiculous.
posey was a solid player, his stats weere down from what they were in boston and he had a few solid games, played good defence on the other teams star but was otherwise an average player
rasual butler??!! this man comes from averaging around 3 min a game in 07-08 and then comes back in 08-09 with 30 min a game average 11 ppg and 3 rpg, not great numbers but he hit a few game winners and was overall a solid wing player
and possible DAVID WEST?! one of the most under rated players in the league, clearly by your lack of knowledge, this mans a 20 and 8 man every night, enough said
and i dont think he “just carried an abysmal team to the playoffs”
they were hit by injuries and inconsistent play from usually consistent players
basically the same if not better roster as 07-08 where they barely missed the conference finals
Since I wrote the first post, I suppose I ought to answer...
A) Chandler was worse last year, I'm not disputing that... but he was still above average. Too many injuries, but still efficient when he actually played.
B) What stats do you measure? Overall totals? That's not an accurate measure of anything... But you are right, Posey was a hair worse than last year in Boston. Just a hair.
C) Rasual Butler is a decent but not great player. Not quite average, sorry.
D) David West shoots well below 50% EFG%, rebounds a little worse than Sean Marks, and is basically mediocre across the rest of the board. Basically, he is fairly high usage (hence the points), and rebounds a little worse than an average PF. But plays a lot of minutes, hence the totals. A solid player, yes, but not really above average. Fairly high on the over-rated list... I'd like to have him on my team, but I wouldn't let him shoot so much!
E) Abysmal might have been a too-strong word, but Chandler went from dominant (~16 wins produced) to ~5 wins, West went from 6 wins to below average (~4 wins), Peja went from average to bad, Butler was only mediocre... The upshot is that if you take CP3 off and stick on an average PG, New Orleans wins about 22 games. Wait, that is abysmal.
in second to last paragraph...
The Blazer "got" to average...
There are some additional things that can be said about the Blazers rise and the OKC situation.
The Blazers started from a spot on offensive efficiency as weak at this team in its "year 1" and got worse on some factors before they got better, including 3 point shooting. Somehow they learned to play fast well. A 50% increase in 3 pointers made has to be one of the main factors.
The Blazers are where they are now being about average on 5 factors and very good on 3.The Blazer at to average on all their weaknesses from 07-08 to 08-09.
The Thunder are already good on 3 smaller things, bad on almost all of the rest. Get to average on half or more of the things they are weak on and that is a big step forward. Get well above average on even just one of shooting or shot defense and you climb even higher. They don't have to be perfect to be very good.
The baby, bad Bulls never could decide who was core or whose was going to be coach. With Skiles they got closer but being good on defense then they re-shuffled again to emphasize more offense and lost some of that defense. Within striking distance of being good but not that good at anything right now. They were generally fast and bad on offense except under Floyd where they were very slow and very bad.
If they are going to play fast then Brooks has to be a good coach for that and they have to dramatically improve the offense. If they are going to be better than average on defense they probably should get a different coach, some different players and probably change the pace but in that order of importance.
Do all those things they could be close to the current Bulls.
On the 4 factors Thunder are most like the Griz, Clips and Wolves. Obviously not where they want to be or expected to be in the future. Shoot way better, defend better, turn it over less. Those are the challenges. To me it seems more likely to make progress on some or all of these slowing down but maybe not.
Most of the good fast teams are strong on the 3 pointer. The Lakers are average but shot well elsewhere else and defend great. The Jazz are terrible from 3 and pretty good on the other two criteria.
If they are going to run they probably should run even more, play smaller. Got to exhaust the other team not just let them have fun, usually being more efficient at running- with a more vet PG at the controls.
And why go to 260+ 7 foot jump-shooting centers then? Mullins can run but you don't want him to be involved much, that is mainly perimeter player work. I guess it is cvovering options. Ibaka or White at center would fit more with running.
Portland big on the 3 pointer, classical vet PG, more defense at the 3 and 4 and 5. More size at the 4. More experience at the 5. Those seem like the biggest differences. Not they are trying to imitate but it would take a lot of work to imitate more closely.
I think the coach sets the pace, not the GM. It's dictated by style of play, which should be dictated by personnel.
Portland- slowest pace, highest offensive efficiency.
OKC- 8th fastest, 2nd least efficient.
Something is different.
Coaching is probably a big part of it.
GM player blending and philosophy too.
Blazers aren't the Spurs but they are real close on pace and way ahead on efficiency.
But you have to have a vision, maybe a singular one, and Sam's will work or it won't.
Bringing home the prodigal CP3. (DSMok1)
this makes no sense at all
first off, new orleans would never ever trade chris paul unless he demanded a trade and would not play (something he would never do)
second, only chandler and posey were above average for the hornets? well first off, chandler played like garbage compared to his previous season, his 07-08 stats of 11 ppg and 11 rpg were dropped to 8 and 8, ontop of the fact that he only played 45 AND he showed a lack of effort that was ridiculous.
posey was a solid player, his stats weere down from what they were in boston and he had a few solid games, played good defence on the other teams star but was otherwise an average player
rasual butler??!! this man comes from averaging around 3 min a game in 07-08 and then comes back in 08-09 with 30 min a game average 11 ppg and 3 rpg, not great numbers but he hit a few game winners and was overall a solid wing player
and possible DAVID WEST?! one of the most under rated players in the league, clearly by your lack of knowledge, this mans a 20 and 8 man every night, enough said
and i dont think he "just carried an abysmal team to the playoffs"
they were hit by injuries and inconsistent play from usually consistent players
basically the same if not better roster as 07-08 where they barely missed the conference finals
Memphis has made more mistakes and good calls. Randolph was a bit of a surprise but got to do something different. More power I guess. I think they get better next year, though some folks have to lose ground. Maybe the very best don't win as much but that might not be a wise bet.
There was a time they talked highly of Warrick or his potential. He wasn't their best choice or their worst.
Taking Carroll and Young they probably are alright on tweener depth, a lot of these guys around now.
Among the top teams in the west there is quite a range of types for PF starters. Doesn't have to be one and only one way. Really that seems true at every position these days.
Center long-term is the main unknown in Presti's plan.
Memphis is pretty desperate to escape the cellar, sell tickets and sell the team.
Warrick would have been far cheaper than Marion. Not sure Dallas was enough left to get Warrick but I could see them wanting him. Denver could use him of they lose Kleiza. Heck the Lakers might consider him if Odom walks.
Alright, thank you.
You are probably right on both Warrick and Green.
My comment was an observation, a comparative snapshot in time, and notice I made it a question twice. Intended for discussion. I jump around and may be hard to pin down precisely. I actually am a bit lower on Warrick than the above sounds and perhaps you (though we are probably pretty close) though I test the ratings of Thunder players I see upside potential too. Green showed me more in year 2 than I expected. I just want to see more- defense, passing, leadership and team results.
If Green isn't a "must-have" near-max guy it might actually make keeping him easier, cheaper and Presti's pick could work out to some extent. Or more. If he and Durant and Westbrook actually play well together consistently at some point. Which could be coming. Looking for signs of it is better than not looking.
I think he would be a good fit in Dallas, with Dirk as PF, and Josh howard as SF, and Hakim off the bench for both guys.
I like Warrick a lot. NO room on the Thunder though for another tweener forward however. Really however, I don't see him fitting in at all in Atlanta though. He is a tweener forward and they already have one of those in Josh Smith.
@Crow
I apologize. Hate was too strong a word.
I love Hakim Warrick. He's a very nice player, but Green is much better than him. Green has better range, causes match-up problems,and has way more potential than Warrick. Warrick is an exceptional bench player, whereas Green has major sidekick potential, and he also showed major improvement from his rookie season to his sophomore season. So, to answer your question, yes, I think that Green will end up being substantially better than Warrick, but I still like Warrick a lot, and I think that Atlanta and Portland would be foolish not to take a look at him.
Vega you seem to like Warrick. Do you think Green is much better or will be? Why is saying they are pretty close and Warrick on paper is better on some big things is "hate"?
That is your word, your characterization and not accurate. I don't hate hardly anything. I dislike people saying that other people hate something or someone. I am simply expressing my opinion that Green- so far- is not that special for a 5 pick and was the wrong guy to match up with Durant.
@Crow
Why do you hate Uncle Jeff so much?
@Vega
Memphis should just come out and admit that they are actively trying to ruin the development of all their promising young talent..."Iverson to Randolph" is the last thing I would ever want to hear as a basketball fan.
If there is little interest in Warrick would there be much interest in Green on the market? Warrick is a better scorer and rebounder. Green has the 3 pointer but Warrick gets to the line 50% more. Now Green is younger but how much will he change?
Memphis has withdrawn their qualifying offer to Hakim Warrick, paving the way for them to sign Iverson. Warrick is one of the best bench players in the league. A contender like Atlanta, Denver, or Portland should take a look at him.
as I have stated numerous times - Thabo is my favorite Thunder player. He's easily the best defender on the team, and only Weaver is close. That being said - he's a liability on offense. He's really not a slasher, and he's a poor outside shooter. He is a good passer, however. So basically he's a glue guy. Invaluable? YES. Starter? no.
*** I will change my mind IF he returns with a good three point shot (wishful thinking) ***
Clark Matthews :
Why does everyone think it’s a foregone conclusion that Harden starts next season? Sefolosha was our best X-factor last season, and Harden has never kissed his hand in a game where he matched up against an NBA starter yet.
Well, I don't necessarily think it's a foregone conclusion, but it is very likely that Harden takes that role at some point in the season because the Thunder were 9 wins and 13 losses with Thabo in the starting lineup.
Thabo is my favorite player, and Nick is my second. I like the hustle and sweat guys more than most, but at some point the wins have to come for this franchise. 9/13 is about 41%. That is a big step up from our winning percent as a whole, but it equates to 33 wins. I think that this team is beyond the "just seeing what we have" mode, and is about trying to get to .500 and beyond. So to me, I give Thabo the early starts, but in the end, you don't use a top three pick to back up the Bruce Bowen/Thabo Sefolosha types unless it is just in form only. If Thabo is still starting in January but only getting 20 mpg while Harden is anchoring the second unit and getting 26 mpg, the minutes tell the tale. Starter or no, 3rd pick in the draft....say no more.
@nick
Don't worry, I cleaned everyone's up. As long as I can make it out, you can make it in.
Oooohh, I'm going to have to start stepping up my commenting now. I'll even capitalize everything so that it looks ok in an article. I want to be in the smart thoughts of the week! Haha, I'm very disapponted to have been left out
Who complimented Roy and / or Aldridge in their 4 best triplets? Not more young guys; it was the vet role players Blake and Joel P.
Westbrook-Collison is equal or better than any other player that Westbrook, Durant or Green have. Krstic with all these 3 is weak, weaker than average for all pairs.
If you keep 2 of Westbrook Durant Harden on the court all or almost all the time then do you really need a another shooter? At least outside shooter. You need one of Krstic, White and Green at all times. 2? Maybe sometimes, wait n see how good 2 do compared to 1.
Thabo's best 2 lineups had an average of 1 of the big 3. (Green once, Westbrook once, Durant none.) That sounds a guy better with this bench. His 2 worst, really terrible lineups had all 3 of the big 3.
Harden could be the scorer from our subs, who else can shoot that is coming off the bench?
No lineup used more than 30 minutes for the season with all three of Westbrook-Durant-Green was positive. It was 12 of 12 negative on adjusted +/- for that triplet. Is that really a fluke or something they grow out of?
Small sample but got more run than anything else given the way they used the season. From a strategic standpoint the available minutes was very inefficently used for searching for good lineups.
I've mentioned it several times but Westbrook-Sefolosha-Durant-Green-Krstic was -18 per 48 minutes on adjusted +/-. Don't trust adjusted +/- much? Fine. But you want to trot that same lineup out as the starting lineup? I wouldn't.
It will be very surprising to me if Harden doesn't start by January. I'd give him 30 minutes a night within the first month. If they think he anchors the second unit, I'll agree he could, but to win you got to be competitive with the first unit. I don't think Westbrook-Durant-Green is the right triplet to do that. I'd rather start White (and Collison) and make Green the super-sub, 2nd unit additional scorer (with Krstic).
@Clark Matthews
I guess I assume that Thabo will return with the same game he had last year. But if he returns with a better jumpshot, then he may just keep his starter spot.
Harden has said several times that he's comfortable with the Manu comparisons. Manu comes off the bench and serves as the team's #1 scoring option.
Even so, I still expect Harden to take the starter spot, mostly because we were the last place team in the league scoring from the SG position. So unless Thabo surprised me with his new-found scoring ability, I think Harden will be used to threaten the defense instead.
@Clark Matthews
Agreed. I've got something coming about this soon, but I think Harden stats off coming off the bench. Until he can prove he can defend and move the ball the way Thabo does, he's not starting.
Why does everyone think it's a foregone conclusion that Harden starts next season? Sefolosha was our best X-factor last season, and Harden has never kissed his hand in a game where he matched up against an NBA starter yet.