-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
2014/15 NBA Thread pelican and okc bitches
- Thread starter NML
- Start date
Brick
Well-Known Member
try to not have a seizure whilst concentrating on one of them in the middle
dirt
Trolltalitarian
should be based on how much off court dumb shit they avoid
silverwheels
PLAY LA BAMBA BABY
Jones whoever the other guy was and augustine will be gone i bet. I hope they just bite the second tier bullet and keep augustine but i think if they move him they get under the threshold
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Yep no risk in back to back years drafting big men with very serious lower body injuries.
This is the third off-season of the Hinkie ponzi scheme... maybe eventually they'll get a top 100 NBA player. Maybe it's Okafor.
Wish I could like this a billion times
Dont mind doh, he's in his comedian phase again
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
At this point? He shot 46% as a 5 last year. I'm not a "PER is everything" person but he wasn't even in the top 150.
Per doesnt include defense does it?
I just wish kanter hadnt signed such a dumbass contract but I'm in the mak camp of get yours regarding players seeking the most money. Kanter played it right, i just wish the trade kicker wasnt in there. Am interested to see how he does on defense with serge lurking. Want to see what his production does. Excited to watch them and the twolves this year.
Bucksin04
Well-Known Member
Blocks, steals, defensive rebounds, and fouls are all part of the PER formula.
That's what i thought
GR8 2 B FL G8R
Well-Known Member
How does he compare to other bigs
Kinda crazy to compare him with guards who rack up points and assists
Kinda crazy to compare him with guards who rack up points and assists
That's my point, it doesn't count defense really and you can't compare bigs to guards. If you can it just means the bigs transcend their position.
Are there even stats to quantify defense yet? I remember an article on grantland talking about the various new concepts the statisticians were trotting out but I don't know if any of them stuck since I haven't heard about them since. Blocks, defensive rebounds, and steals don't do it for me.
i said a few posts back, they are instituting more defensive stats, but i think they will be along the lines of "dive for loose balls, tipped passes, etc.."
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Glad OKC matched Kanter. I never get tired of the "OKC never had a center do 20 and 10 in a game until they traded for Kanter, who had 11 in 26 games."
NML
Well-Known Member
This is just glorious
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
I think this pretty aptly explains why the Harden comparison doesn't work.
=============================
Kanter is also a 23-year-old double-double machine with four years of experience, and he doesn't have to fit as a franchise cornerstone in Oklahoma City. Think about this: Kanter is just a year older than Frank Kaminsky. In the 26 games with the Thunder last season, Kanter averaged 18.7 points and 11.0 rebounds (an impressive 24.9 player efficiency rating) and can fill a unique role for OKC, likely as a scoring sixth man.
A max-level contract is steep for him, but the Thunder aren't offering him that; the Blazers are. It's up to the Thunder to determine if paying that is better than the alternative, which would be losing him entirely. And with them building a high-level contending roster, Kanter is a luxury worth paying for -- literally. The Thunder are well over the cap and couldn't add a player anywhere near the caliber of Kanter, but with them holding his Bird rights, they're adding a max player in free agency. That's pretty important for a team that already has Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka.
But, to the giant beard in the room: Why would the Thunder pay a max deal to Enes Kanter and not one to James Harden three years ago? It's a reasonable question to ask, but one that requires a lot more context to explain.
First, the NBA in 2012 was much different than it is in 2015. That was fouroffseasons ago. There was no $70 million salary cap. In 2012, it was $58 million. Just compare the contracts handed out in that free agency period to the ones in this one. There's a reason for that. And projections have the cap soaring to possibly as much as $100 million, or more, in 2017. Nobody knew that was happening when the Thunder were negotiating with Harden.
Second, the Thunder have always been operating within a specific plan, doing their best to stick to their defined "core values." Those include resisting the urge to overspend and compromise the future before the core members of the roster -- Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka -- reach the primes of their careers. The reason for that is following the new collective bargaining agreement that not only included a more punitive luxury tax, but an extremely threatening addendum to that called the "repeater tax." The Thunder didn't want to spend what was in the coffers before they needed to re-sign Durant in 2016, and Westbrook and Ibaka in 2017. You can look at the profits of the franchise from the last few years -- and they've been impressive, no doubt -- but those would be wiped out in two or three short seasons of paying the nasty repeater tax.
It's not that the Thunder are unique to it, either. Every team in the league is terrified of the repeater tax, even the big-market teams such as the Lakers, Nets, Bulls and Knicks, who are all maneuvering to avoid it. Nobody wants to pay that thing. Especially one that has to be as financially conscious as the Thunder.
They were, however, willing to deviate from those core values with Harden to a degree in offering him an extension totaling to close to $55 million ($5 million short of a max), which would have sent the Thunder well into the luxury tax. That extra $5 million in breathing room, though, was going to help in enabling them the following summer to get under the tax line -- likely by exercising its amnesty clause on Kendrick Perkins -- and reduce their chances of being a repeat tax offender three out of four years by the time 2016 rolled around. Instead, with Harden desperately wanting to leave anyway, the Thunder made their offer and held their ground.
So essentially, the Thunder gambled on differing title windows. They had a four-year look in re-signing Harden before they would've almost assuredly been forced to trade either Harden, Westbrook or Ibaka (again, keep in mind they didn't know in 2012 the cap was going to spike). Or they could try to maintain a championship-level contender built around three really good players -- which they did. Remember, they were in the Western Conference finals two years ago, and are propping open another title window starting this season as they become a tax team. Which again conveniently aligns with Durant's free agency next summer, when he could re-sign for a max deal taking up 30 percent of the Thunder's salary cap.
It's a completely fair discussion to have if the Thunder picked the right window to make their move. Considering they haven't cashed in and won a championship yet, maybe not. But they also haven't been far off, and if not for a few untimely injuries, they might have pulled it off already. And now, the Thunder will have their deepest, most potent roster ever next season, with potentially 12 capable rotation players, all set up to be retained for the long-term. Durant's gotta like that.
What's not fair is comparing Kanter's max to the one the Thunder didn't give Harden. The Thunder have been planning for these seasons all along, trying to make sure their financial ducks were in a row to align with the primes of Durant and Westbrook. Their four-year window with Harden would've been starting with a core of 23-year-olds. Durant and Westbrook will both turn 27 this fall. History says that's when players start winning titles.
The Thunder paid a small snippet of the tax last season, putting one year on the tally. Two more in the next three years, and they're heading for the dreaded repeater. Re-signing Kanter virtually guarantees Year 2 of it. And if everything goes according to plan and Durant re-signs, it will require some salary cap gymnastics to get under it before Westbrook is due for his new contract in 2017. But it's going to be possible to do, because again, the salary cap is going to go bonkers.
So this is the important takeaway: Had the Thunder gone all-in in 2012, instead of adding pieces now, they would be looking to begin a tear down, which isn't what you want to be doing when you've got to re-sign Durant. That's why Kanter's max today isn't comparable to the one the Thunder wouldn't give Harden in 2012. It wasn't just four offseasons ago, it was four salary caps ago, too. That was then, this is now.
http://espn.go.com/blog/okc-thunder/post/_/id/606/is-enes-kanter-really-worth-70-million
=============================
Kanter is also a 23-year-old double-double machine with four years of experience, and he doesn't have to fit as a franchise cornerstone in Oklahoma City. Think about this: Kanter is just a year older than Frank Kaminsky. In the 26 games with the Thunder last season, Kanter averaged 18.7 points and 11.0 rebounds (an impressive 24.9 player efficiency rating) and can fill a unique role for OKC, likely as a scoring sixth man.
A max-level contract is steep for him, but the Thunder aren't offering him that; the Blazers are. It's up to the Thunder to determine if paying that is better than the alternative, which would be losing him entirely. And with them building a high-level contending roster, Kanter is a luxury worth paying for -- literally. The Thunder are well over the cap and couldn't add a player anywhere near the caliber of Kanter, but with them holding his Bird rights, they're adding a max player in free agency. That's pretty important for a team that already has Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka.
But, to the giant beard in the room: Why would the Thunder pay a max deal to Enes Kanter and not one to James Harden three years ago? It's a reasonable question to ask, but one that requires a lot more context to explain.
First, the NBA in 2012 was much different than it is in 2015. That was fouroffseasons ago. There was no $70 million salary cap. In 2012, it was $58 million. Just compare the contracts handed out in that free agency period to the ones in this one. There's a reason for that. And projections have the cap soaring to possibly as much as $100 million, or more, in 2017. Nobody knew that was happening when the Thunder were negotiating with Harden.
Second, the Thunder have always been operating within a specific plan, doing their best to stick to their defined "core values." Those include resisting the urge to overspend and compromise the future before the core members of the roster -- Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka -- reach the primes of their careers. The reason for that is following the new collective bargaining agreement that not only included a more punitive luxury tax, but an extremely threatening addendum to that called the "repeater tax." The Thunder didn't want to spend what was in the coffers before they needed to re-sign Durant in 2016, and Westbrook and Ibaka in 2017. You can look at the profits of the franchise from the last few years -- and they've been impressive, no doubt -- but those would be wiped out in two or three short seasons of paying the nasty repeater tax.
It's not that the Thunder are unique to it, either. Every team in the league is terrified of the repeater tax, even the big-market teams such as the Lakers, Nets, Bulls and Knicks, who are all maneuvering to avoid it. Nobody wants to pay that thing. Especially one that has to be as financially conscious as the Thunder.
They were, however, willing to deviate from those core values with Harden to a degree in offering him an extension totaling to close to $55 million ($5 million short of a max), which would have sent the Thunder well into the luxury tax. That extra $5 million in breathing room, though, was going to help in enabling them the following summer to get under the tax line -- likely by exercising its amnesty clause on Kendrick Perkins -- and reduce their chances of being a repeat tax offender three out of four years by the time 2016 rolled around. Instead, with Harden desperately wanting to leave anyway, the Thunder made their offer and held their ground.
So essentially, the Thunder gambled on differing title windows. They had a four-year look in re-signing Harden before they would've almost assuredly been forced to trade either Harden, Westbrook or Ibaka (again, keep in mind they didn't know in 2012 the cap was going to spike). Or they could try to maintain a championship-level contender built around three really good players -- which they did. Remember, they were in the Western Conference finals two years ago, and are propping open another title window starting this season as they become a tax team. Which again conveniently aligns with Durant's free agency next summer, when he could re-sign for a max deal taking up 30 percent of the Thunder's salary cap.
It's a completely fair discussion to have if the Thunder picked the right window to make their move. Considering they haven't cashed in and won a championship yet, maybe not. But they also haven't been far off, and if not for a few untimely injuries, they might have pulled it off already. And now, the Thunder will have their deepest, most potent roster ever next season, with potentially 12 capable rotation players, all set up to be retained for the long-term. Durant's gotta like that.
What's not fair is comparing Kanter's max to the one the Thunder didn't give Harden. The Thunder have been planning for these seasons all along, trying to make sure their financial ducks were in a row to align with the primes of Durant and Westbrook. Their four-year window with Harden would've been starting with a core of 23-year-olds. Durant and Westbrook will both turn 27 this fall. History says that's when players start winning titles.
The Thunder paid a small snippet of the tax last season, putting one year on the tally. Two more in the next three years, and they're heading for the dreaded repeater. Re-signing Kanter virtually guarantees Year 2 of it. And if everything goes according to plan and Durant re-signs, it will require some salary cap gymnastics to get under it before Westbrook is due for his new contract in 2017. But it's going to be possible to do, because again, the salary cap is going to go bonkers.
So this is the important takeaway: Had the Thunder gone all-in in 2012, instead of adding pieces now, they would be looking to begin a tear down, which isn't what you want to be doing when you've got to re-sign Durant. That's why Kanter's max today isn't comparable to the one the Thunder wouldn't give Harden in 2012. It wasn't just four offseasons ago, it was four salary caps ago, too. That was then, this is now.
http://espn.go.com/blog/okc-thunder/post/_/id/606/is-enes-kanter-really-worth-70-million
silverwheels
PLAY LA BAMBA BABY
get that logic outta here. okc should have maxed harden and they would have had 4 straight titles. no doubt in my mind.
Easy point to make but a dumb one
silverwheels
PLAY LA BAMBA BABY
Oversimplifying things. OKC could have given Harden all the money he asked for but he still wouldn't have been happy because he still would have been 3rd banana at best. OKC already has 2 of the best wings in the league and another one with a similar skill set would have been redundant. Kanter is being overpaid now, but once the cap goes up, his salary's percentage of it is more in line with what it should be, plus he gives the Thudner something they've never had in OKC: a legitimate offensive post threat. You put Kanter, Ibaka, Durant, and RUSS on the floor at the same time? Deadly, at least offensively. Plus it gives them more flexibility with their lineups (and the deepest bench they've ever had helps, too).
So it's not really Harden vs. Kanter. It's 2012's salary cap/tax threshold vs. 2017's cap/threshold. It's Harden + a weak bench before any of these guys are in their primes vs. a very good bench, better lineups, and a better chance at keeping KD and probably RUSS in the middle of their primes. It's a no-brainer.
p.s. james harden is a little bitch
NML
Well-Known Member
Logic?
Man, if it helps you sleep at night, eat that garbage up - but it's just that, trash. Just going to pull some of these quotes:
Harden was 23 when he went to Houston and in his last season with OKC, played that exact role with a 21 PER. So far, they are the exact same.
As opposed to when they traded Harden and got all of Steven Adams in return? Kanter is extremely overpaid - which isn't necessarily that uncommon for a big man in this game, but isn't that the kind of thing that OKC wants to avoid? Meanwhile, Harden's max contract is still underpaying him.
Yeah, exactly what I just said. So their core value is not overspend, but here's why overspending is okay...
OH NO! OUR OWNERS WOULDN'T MAKE A PROFIT?!
This is maybe the most laughable thing in the whole article. "Maybe not?" Of course fucking not. You made it to the finals and then traded away a big piece. They are coming off a season where they missed the playoffs and only the biggest OKC homer would put them in even the top three in the West alone.
Now this part I can't really disagree with, because I don't have the stats to back up this, fairly ambitious, claim.
What I can say is that "core of 23-year olds" made it to the finals. And since then, they've made it to the second round, conference finals, and missed the playoffs.
This is pretty bad too - so they are okay doing it twice and just relying on "salary cap gymnastics" to avoid the repeater tax? Why couldn't they do that with Harden? There's always a way to dump salary in this league and it's typically not very expensive.
They also make a reference to the salary cap going up and that it wasn't predictable. That's very possibly true (I don't know enough about the inner workings of how it's calculated), but that doesn't excuse the move with Harden. If anything, it makes it look worse because now they would have all three AND salary cap to work with when they are hitting this apparently magic age of 27.
Man, if it helps you sleep at night, eat that garbage up - but it's just that, trash. Just going to pull some of these quotes:
Harden was 23 when he went to Houston and in his last season with OKC, played that exact role with a 21 PER. So far, they are the exact same.
As opposed to when they traded Harden and got all of Steven Adams in return? Kanter is extremely overpaid - which isn't necessarily that uncommon for a big man in this game, but isn't that the kind of thing that OKC wants to avoid? Meanwhile, Harden's max contract is still underpaying him.
Yeah, exactly what I just said. So their core value is not overspend, but here's why overspending is okay...
OH NO! OUR OWNERS WOULDN'T MAKE A PROFIT?!
This is maybe the most laughable thing in the whole article. "Maybe not?" Of course fucking not. You made it to the finals and then traded away a big piece. They are coming off a season where they missed the playoffs and only the biggest OKC homer would put them in even the top three in the West alone.
Now this part I can't really disagree with, because I don't have the stats to back up this, fairly ambitious, claim.
What I can say is that "core of 23-year olds" made it to the finals. And since then, they've made it to the second round, conference finals, and missed the playoffs.
This is pretty bad too - so they are okay doing it twice and just relying on "salary cap gymnastics" to avoid the repeater tax? Why couldn't they do that with Harden? There's always a way to dump salary in this league and it's typically not very expensive.
They also make a reference to the salary cap going up and that it wasn't predictable. That's very possibly true (I don't know enough about the inner workings of how it's calculated), but that doesn't excuse the move with Harden. If anything, it makes it look worse because now they would have all three AND salary cap to work with when they are hitting this apparently magic age of 27.
silverwheels
PLAY LA BAMBA BABY
Again, Harden wanted to be the main guy, which was never going to happen in OKC as long as Durant and Westbrook were here, so really the money argument is moot. OKC is in great shape now and for the future, both from a talent and financial standpoint. It's not a guarantee that they'd be in the same shape with Harden and his max contract.
NML
Well-Known Member
This whole post is bullshit that OKC fans tell themselves. There's no indication that Harden wanted anything other than what he was owed - why aren't you criticizing Kanter for doing the same thing? He didn't have to sign that offer sheet from the Blazers.
Bucks already outlined that his cap number will still be high relative to some of the players around him, but I don't necessarily mind that part since it's subjective anyways. What I do care about is that no one with even a shred of basketball knowledge would say Kanter is a better player than Harden - so those four STILL could've been on the floor together, but better.
Finally, if you think Durant and RUSS are looking at this move and going "yeah, this is the place to be" - you are fucking crazy. I'm not saying they like or dislike the move, but overpaying Kanter is NOT what is going to keep them together versus going to another team.
silverwheels
PLAY LA BAMBA BABY
Well your posts are just bullshit that non-OKC fans tell themselves. Oh look, I can do it, too.
No one is saying Kanter is a better player than Harden. Kanter provides a different skill set that this team desperately needed. And actually yes, it was known at the time of the trade that Harden was not happy being the sixth man. And honestly he sucked when he did get to start because he was in between KD and RUSS, who are better players and had the ball more.
No one is saying Kanter is a better player than Harden. Kanter provides a different skill set that this team desperately needed. And actually yes, it was known at the time of the trade that Harden was not happy being the sixth man. And honestly he sucked when he did get to start because he was in between KD and RUSS, who are better players and had the ball more.