PDA

View Full Version : Should the Thunder trade Westbrook?



KingstonHawke
01-20-2014, 01:57 AM
NOTE: adjusted my steps, didn't realize that you can't amnesty until the end of the year... everything's basically the same though

Westbrook is one of my favorite players in the whole league. BUT... it would make a lot of sense for the Thunder to trade him and just commit to being a Durant led team.

Obviously, this only makes sense if you can get a package equal to the value that Westbrook offers. But I don't think that would be hard. Here is an example of the moves I would make if I was Presti.

Step 1. Trade Westbrook to the 76ers for MCW, Nerlens Noel, and the pick the 76ers got from the Pelicans. (who do you think wins this trade?)

Step 2. Trade Jackson, Thabeet, Collison, and the Pelicans pick (remember it's top 5 protected) to the Knicks for Shumpart, JR Smith.

Step 3. Sign Andrew Bynum to a similarly structured deal to the one he got from the Cavs but just for a lot less money (a one year deal, partially guaranteed with a 2nd year team option)

Step 4. Amnesty Perkins in the offseason.

This is what the roster would look like.

PG: Carter-Williams ($2.2/4), Shumpart ($1.7/2), Fisher ($.9/1)
SG: Lamb ($2.1/3), Smith ($5.6/3)
SF: Durant ($17.8/3), Sefolosha ($3.9/1), Roberson ($.7/4)
PF: Ibaka($12.4/4), Noel ($3.2/4), Jones III ($1.1/3)
C: Bynum($5/2), Perkins ($8.7/2), Adams ($2.1/4)

That's a total of $67.4. So even if Bynum weren't to work out. Next year you'd still have two young talented centers, and up to $10mil to get another.

Young, versatile, cheap. I think this roster beats any team in the league. With the way Durant is playing, they wouldn't even need Bynum until the playoffs.

Anyway, tell me what you think. Give me other ideas. And just so you know, I intentionally over-traded, and overpaid players. And this is what it looks like in the trade machine.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=mls96sq

Buckwheat
01-20-2014, 01:59 AM
http://p.twimg.com/A9QIx6QCcAAMtQ4.jpg:large

5ass
01-20-2014, 02:12 AM
http://p.twimg.com/A9QIx6QCcAAMtQ4.jpg:large

ur sig haha, one of my favorite movies of all time.
Op, Why would the sixers trade all their assets for westbrook? thats crazy

sunsfan88
01-20-2014, 02:21 AM
Westbrook is a superstar PG. He is a menace defensively and is one of the best PGs in the NBA in terms of creating his own shot whether in the halfcourt or transition. OKC needs Westbrook. They aren't going anywhere if they have to count on just Durant and a bunch of rookies for 2-3 months plus playoffs.

We saw how good the Thunder were in the playoffs without Westbrook.

Durant's a great player but just like all other great players, he can't take the Thunder anywhere on his own. They need a legit 2nd scoring option which they have in Westbrook.

I would bet that Durant demands a trade or doesn't resign with OKC when his contract's up if they trade Westbrook unless they get some great value for him.

KingstonHawke
01-20-2014, 02:24 AM
ur sig haha, one of my favorite movies of all time.
Op, Why would the sixers trade all their assets for westbrook? thats crazy

You just said you'd rather build around MCW, Noel, and a top 5 protected pick instead of a 25 year old 20-7-5 PG. -_-

KingstonHawke
01-20-2014, 02:26 AM
Westbrook is a superstar PG. He is a menace defensively and is one of the best PGs in the NBA in terms of creating his own shot whether in the halfcourt or transition. OKC needs Westbrook. They aren't going anywhere if they have to count on just Durant and a bunch of rookies for 2-3 months plus playoffs.

We saw how good the Thunder were in the playoffs without Westbrook.

Durant's a great player but just like all other great players, he can't take the Thunder anywhere on his own. They need a legit 2nd scoring option which they have in Westbrook.

I would bet that Durant demands a trade or doesn't resign with OKC when his contract's up if they trade Westbrook unless they get some great value for him.

You don't trust Bynum and MCW as 2nd and 3rd scoring options?

DDynO
01-20-2014, 03:28 AM
HAHAHAHA. No, they shouldn't.

Saddletramp
01-20-2014, 03:33 AM
You can't amnesty Perkins until the offseason. Also, there's no way the Sixers trade all of that for one player.

dhopisthename
01-20-2014, 03:34 AM
yes to the jazz :)

KingstonHawke
01-20-2014, 04:07 AM
You can't amnesty Perkins until the offseason. Also, there's no way the Sixers trade all of that for one player.

Didn't realize that. Doesn't make a difference though. Just means he'd back up Bynum and cut into Noel and Jones minutes. Probably would actually be better that way.

Chrisclover
01-20-2014, 04:18 AM
Did you try it in the trade machine ?it involves so many steps and one single mistake can totally ruin the whole argument

Sadds The Gr8
01-20-2014, 04:21 AM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/162/634/Abandon-thread1.gif

sunsfan88
01-20-2014, 04:33 AM
You don't trust Bynum and MCW as 2nd and 3rd scoring options?

Um, I don't even trust Bynum to even show up at the game.

Duncan = Donkey
01-20-2014, 07:05 AM
Um, I don't even trust Bynum to even show up at the game.

:laugh2:

Teeboy1487
01-20-2014, 09:18 AM
Um, I don't even trust Bynum to even show up at the game.

Maybe a bowling game.

GiantsSwaGG
01-20-2014, 09:28 AM
You don't trust Bynum and MCW as 2nd and 3rd scoring options?

I trust Bynum to bowl a 300 game

JasonJohnHorn
01-20-2014, 09:41 AM
I'm not sure Philly would go for that trade. Give up three first-round picks for Westbrook?

I think signing Bynum wouldn't hurt.


What they should have done is NOT trade Harden for Martin and then let Martin walk in free agency. That was dumb.

Jamiecballer
01-20-2014, 10:07 AM
i agree that they should but i think it's too late for that kind of thinking. it would probably be a pretty big blow to Durant.

Burkey3472
01-20-2014, 10:20 AM
I'm sure Durant wouldn't be happy if you traded away one of the top PG's in the league and got back a bunch of young kids. All of those pieces are attractive but they wouldn't be ready for a title run for another 2 years at minimum.

kobebabe
01-20-2014, 10:30 AM
so basically what you saying is they should start tanking right?

theducksmuggler
01-20-2014, 10:32 AM
really why would the 76ers trade you all of that? our team would be horribly mediocre.

KnicksorBust
01-20-2014, 10:41 AM
They should have traded him 2 years ago and kept Harden. At this point you just ride it out w. Westy-Durant and hope one year they pull it off.

jericho
01-20-2014, 10:44 AM
Westbrook is one of my favorite players in the whole league. BUT... it would make a lot of sense for the Thunder to trade him and just commit to being a Durant led team.

Obviously, this only makes sense if you can get a package equal to the value that Westbrook offers. But I don't think that would be hard. Here is an example of the moves I would make if I was Presti.

Step 1. trade Westbrook to the 76ers for MCW, Nerlens Noel, and the pick the 76ers got from the Pelicans.

Step 2. Amnesty Perkins.

Step 3. Sign Andrew Bynum to a similar deal to the one he got from the Cavs (a one year deal, partially guaranteed with a 2nd year team option)

Step 4. trade Jackson, Thabeet, Collison, and the Pelicans pick (remember it's top 5 protected) to the Knicks for Shumpart, JR Smith.

This is what the roster would look like.

PG: Carter-Williams ($2.2/4), Shumpart ($1.7/2), Fisher ($.9/1)
SG: Lamb ($2.1/3), Smith ($5.6/3)
SF: Durant ($17.8/3), Sefolosha ($3.9/1), Roberson ($.7/4)
PF: Ibaka($12.4/4), Jones III ($1.1/3)
C: Bynum($5/2), Noel ($3.2/4), Adams ($2.1/4)

That's a total of $58.7. So even if Bynum weren't to work out. Next year you'd still have two young talented centers, and up to $10mil to get another.

Young, versatile, cheap. I think this roster beats any team in the league. With the way Durant is playing, they wouldn't even need Bynum until the playoffs.

Anyway, tell me what you think. Give me other ideas. And just so you know, I intentionally over-traded, and overpaid players.

I wouldn't hire you as a GM. I would do the first 2 options but the last 2 are just insane ideas. First off Bynum hell no. And that last trade idea please oh please no I am a Knicks fan and i can tell you that you are giving up way to much for those 2.

If you want to do that trade ill take it in a heartbeat and i love my boy Shumps.

2-ONE-5
01-20-2014, 10:45 AM
Westbrook is one of my favorite players in the whole league. BUT... it would make a lot of sense for the Thunder to trade him and just commit to being a Durant led team.

Obviously, this only makes sense if you can get a package equal to the value that Westbrook offers. But I don't think that would be hard. Here is an example of the moves I would make if I was Presti.

Step 1. trade Westbrook to the 76ers for MCW, Nerlens Noel, and the pick the 76ers got from the Pelicans.
Step 2. Amnesty Perkins.

Step 3. Sign Andrew Bynum to a similar deal to the one he got from the Cavs (a one year deal, partially guaranteed with a 2nd year team option)

Step 4. trade Jackson, Thabeet, Collison, and the Pelicans pick (remember it's top 5 protected) to the Knicks for Shumpart, JR Smith.

This is what the roster would look like.

PG: Carter-Williams ($2.2/4), Shumpart ($1.7/2), Fisher ($.9/1)
SG: Lamb ($2.1/3), Smith ($5.6/3)
SF: Durant ($17.8/3), Sefolosha ($3.9/1), Roberson ($.7/4)
PF: Ibaka($12.4/4), Jones III ($1.1/3)
C: Bynum($5/2), Noel ($3.2/4), Adams ($2.1/4)

That's a total of $58.7. So even if Bynum weren't to work out. Next year you'd still have two young talented centers, and up to $10mil to get another.

Young, versatile, cheap. I think this roster beats any team in the league. With the way Durant is playing, they wouldn't even need Bynum until the playoffs.

Anyway, tell me what you think. Give me other ideas. And just so you know, I intentionally over-traded, and overpaid players.

hahahahaha i stopped reading aftter step 1. you are insane

Sactown
01-20-2014, 12:01 PM
Reality is during the regular season KD is able to get 40 plus efficiently but in the playoffs where adjustments are made he wont be able to do it alone in a seven game series

72 Wins
01-20-2014, 12:09 PM
Don't know if this would have worked with the cap, but there was talk about Westbrook for Rondo and then keeping Harden.

RLundi
01-20-2014, 12:14 PM
Why on earth would Philly trade all of that for Westbrook?

-Kobe24-TJ19-
01-20-2014, 12:22 PM
Stevie Nash for Westbrook

PhillyFaninLA
01-20-2014, 12:28 PM
Neither team would or should do this.

PhillyFaninLA
01-20-2014, 12:31 PM
You just said you'd rather build around MCW, Noel, and a top 5 protected pick instead of a 25 year old 20-7-5 PG. -_-

MCW

17-6.7-5.7 and second in the league in steals at 2.48

and he's a rookie

Noels has put on 21 pounds of muscle and been working on his shot and is a shot blocker

and the Sixers are rebuilding....you don't trade young players you can build around and a potentially great pick in a good draft for an injured PG that is good to great but not elite

poleandreel
01-20-2014, 12:32 PM
lol @ people saying philly wouldn't do that trade. Westbrook is a proven superstar player.

MCW is an inefficient player (fg% and TO) with a suspect jumpshot, extremely high usage rate (hence the high counting stats) on a lottery bound team. Not to mention he has already missed games due to an ailing knee.

Noel has not even played an NBA game and already had a devastating knee injury. He has absolutely no offensive game and fell in the draft for a reason. For all we know, he could easily be Thabeet 2.0 or Biyombo.

The pick doesn't matter as it is protected and drafts are hit or miss anyway.

Philly would jump on that deal in a heartbeat. Westy is 25 years old and as much as you like to play up the Knee injury, they are minor, non invasive procedures that take much less time to heal than he has missed. Okc is being super cautious, which is the right thing to do.

You guys are a joke.

PhillyFaninLA
01-20-2014, 12:42 PM
lol @ people saying philly wouldn't do that trade. Westbrook is a proven superstar player.

MCW is an inefficient player (fg% and TO) with a suspect jumpshot, extremely high usage rate (hence the high counting stats) on a lottery bound team. Not to mention he has already missed games due to an ailing knee.

Noel has not even played an NBA game and already had a devastating knee injury. He has absolutely no offensive game and fell in the draft for a reason. For all we know, he could easily be Thabeet 2.0 or Biyombo.

The pick doesn't matter as it is protected and drafts are hit or miss anyway.

Philly would jump on that deal in a heartbeat. Westy is 25 years old and as much as you like to play up the Knee injury, they are minor, non invasive procedures that take much less time to heal than he has missed. Okc is being super cautious, which is the right thing to do.

You guys are a joke.

My point is valid because one guy has a knee injury that fell in the draft because of his shooting and not his knee injury that was prior to the draft and I haven't watched the Sixers play so I cannot judge MCW or do I pay attention to his stats and that he has been the best rookie in the NBA this year and the guy I'm saying they have to trade for has a knee injury but that knee injury isn't important because acknowledging it would hurt my point.


That is what you said

WES KOAST
01-20-2014, 12:47 PM
MCW

17-6.7-5.7 and second in the league in steals at 2.48

and he's a rookie

Noels has put on 21 pounds of muscle and been working on his shot and is a shot blocker

and the Sixers are rebuilding....you don't trade young players you can build around and a potentially great pick in a good draft for an injured PG that is good to great but not elite

westbrook is elite along wih curry cp3 parker rose

Ebbs
01-20-2014, 12:54 PM
What a ****ing ******** thread. Not to mention I'd rather have Reggie Jackson playing center than trade him and a first for J.R. and Shump.

poleandreel
01-20-2014, 12:59 PM
My point is valid because one guy has a knee injury that fell in the draft because of his shooting and not his knee injury that was prior to the draft and I haven't watched the Sixers play so I cannot judge MCW or do I pay attention to his stats and that he has been the best rookie in the NBA this year and the guy I'm saying they have to trade for has a knee injury but that knee injury isn't important because acknowledging it would hurt my point.


That is what you said

lolwut. I have watched a ton of sixers games this year...nba league pass hurdurr. MCW has been good, but it is definitely not impressive that he is the best rookie in ths awful class of rookies.

He has no jumper, can't shoot 3s, is a pretty bad free throw shooter, turns it over a ton, has played HALF a season, and has missed games due to a knee injury.

Look at Brandon Jennings, was awesome for half his rookie season and has been garbage since.

Noel is a HUGE question mark. No matter how much he works on his jumper, it will never be a usable offensive move. Tell me any other time in history a player was kept out longer for an injury (potentially an entire season) so they could "completely rebuild his jumpshot and footwork".

PhillyFaninLA
01-20-2014, 01:26 PM
lolwut. I have watched a ton of sixers games this year...nba league pass hurdurr. MCW has been good, but it is definitely not impressive that he is the best rookie in ths awful class of rookies.

He has no jumper, can't shoot 3s, is a pretty bad free throw shooter, turns it over a ton, has played HALF a season, and has missed games due to a knee injury.

Look at Brandon Jennings, was awesome for half his rookie season and has been garbage since.

Noel is a HUGE question mark. No matter how much he works on his jumper, it will never be a usable offensive move. Tell me any other time in history a player was kept out longer for an injury (potentially an entire season) so they could "completely rebuild his jumpshot and footwork".

He's being kept out for the injury he had before he was drafted (the reason he fell)...he would have been number 1 if healthy....you don't watch the Sixers, I just think your lying and you clearly don't know anything about Noel.

xxplayerxx23
01-20-2014, 01:28 PM
Do that Knicks trade :drool:

2-ONE-5
01-20-2014, 01:30 PM
lol @ people saying philly wouldn't do that trade. Westbrook is a proven superstar player.

MCW is an inefficient player (fg% and TO) with a suspect jumpshot, extremely high usage rate (hence the high counting stats) on a lottery bound team. Not to mention he has already missed games due to an ailing knee.

Noel has not even played an NBA game and already had a devastating knee injury. He has absolutely no offensive game and fell in the draft for a reason. For all we know, he could easily be Thabeet 2.0 or Biyombo.

The pick doesn't matter as it is protected and drafts are hit or miss anyway.

Philly would jump on that deal in a heartbeat. Westy is 25 years old and as much as you like to play up the Knee injury, they are minor, non invasive procedures that take much less time to heal than he has missed. Okc is being super cautious, which is the right thing to do.

You guys are a joke.

no, no we would not jump on that deal. A lineup of Westy, ET, Thad, Hawes, whoever is faaar from a contender and cap strapped. Noel, MCW, 2 lotto picks, all on rookie deals are worth more to the Sixers.

I love Westbrook and he is elite and gets way to muhc hate but there is no shot in hell is enough to make Hinkie even considering getting of course on this rebuild.

oh and MCW was never seriously injured he was held out bcuz our starting 5 has or recently had a winning record on the court together sadly. Same reason why Thad and Hawes missed games.

xxplayerxx23
01-20-2014, 01:33 PM
What a ****ing ******** thread. Not to mention I'd rather have Reggie Jackson playing center than trade him and a first for J.R. and Shump.

**** you ebbs let him do it.

Jarvo
01-20-2014, 01:37 PM
Nah son

poleandreel
01-20-2014, 01:47 PM
no, no we would not jump on that deal. A lineup of Westy, ET, Thad, Hawes, whoever is faaar from a contender and cap strapped. Noel, MCW, 2 lotto picks, all on rookie deals are worth more to the Sixers.

I love Westbrook and he is elite and gets way to muhc hate but there is no shot in hell is enough to make Hinkie even considering getting of course on this rebuild.

oh and MCW was never seriously injured he was held out bcuz our starting 5 has or recently had a winning record on the court together sadly. Same reason why Thad and Hawes missed games.

My serious personal opinion is that no, philly would not do this trade. Not because it isn't a good deal, but because they would still be awful with Westy (or rose/paul george/harden,etc) so it wouldnt make sense.

However, I think based on talent and return, philly would be winning the deal. I'm sure there were people who thought Memphis would be crazy to trade O.J Mayo (#3 overall pick and 18ppg rookie year) and Thabeet (#2 overall pick) for anyone. But we see how it would have turned out had they traded those two players for a superstar. Neither player contributed to their rebuild.

2-ONE-5
01-20-2014, 01:54 PM
where you got drafted doesnt mean anything. I dont think many, if any people thought Thabeet was worth that pick or would even turn out to be an all star level player. Mayo didnt fit in Memphis at all, they drafted bad and this has nothing to do with the topic anyway.

poleandreel
01-20-2014, 02:00 PM
where you got drafted doesnt mean anything. I dont think many, if any people thought Thabeet was worth that pick or would even turn out to be an all star level player. Mayo didnt fit in Memphis at all, they drafted bad and this has nothing to do with the topic anyway.

Mayo had a great rookie year, which is what you guys are arguing about MCW. But as we saw, he regressed and his rookie year was arguably his best season in the league. The same can be true for MCW.

Thabeet was touted as an incredibly defensive player with Dikembe like blocking ability. However, he had no offensive game. The same has been said about Noel. I think it's a pretty decent comparison. You don't know what you have in either player yet and if you could get a superstar return for them, it would be worth it.

However, the sixers are so awful that not even Durant could help them so it would make no sense for them to do the trade because they'd just waste westy's prime years.

2-ONE-5
01-20-2014, 02:08 PM
Thabeet is not even close to a fair comparison for Noel they play nothing a like and Noel wont be being asked to be even the #1 option going forward. Noel has Tyson Chandler written all over on both O and D and everyone in Philly is fully confident in our player development, FO, and coach to maximize the talents of all these young guys. I also dont know why you keep taking little shots at the Sixers everyone knows we arent good, thats the point.

As for Mayo having a good rookie year, well he did no argument, but his impact all around was nowhere near the one currently being made by MCW.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
01-20-2014, 02:14 PM
If you trade Westbrook, you might as well say goodbye to Durant when he becomes a FA.


hahahahaha i stopped reading aftter step 1. you are insane

You act as if that would be a stupid trade for the 76ers.

THE MTL
01-20-2014, 02:27 PM
You just said you'd rather build around MCW, Noel, and a top 5 protected pick instead of a 25 year old 20-7-5 PG. -_-

MCW

17-6.7-5.7 and second in the league in steals at 2.48

and he's a rookie

Noels has put on 21 pounds of muscle and been working on his shot and is a shot blocker

and the Sixers are rebuilding....you don't trade young players you can build around and a potentially great pick in a good draft for an injured PG that is good to great but not elite

He's been working on his shot..... How many points does he average?

21 pounds of muscle?.... so now he's a 7fter who weighs 220 instead of 200.

He's a shot blocker? How many blocks he average per game?

Only fact is that he's out for the season and a championship team like the Thunder don't have time for that.

2-ONE-5
01-20-2014, 02:31 PM
hes 228 and 19 years old hes going to continue to fill out. you just sound like an upset NYK fan whose team has no future or direction

bholly
01-20-2014, 02:36 PM
Westbrook might have more value than that Sixers package in a vacuum, especially if you're optimistic about his injury stuff - but in terms of situations I have a really hard time seeing the Sixers choosing Westbrook+Thad (a team built for 3rd seeds and second round exits in the East for the next few years, whose only hope would be signing Love or someone in FA, and still run the risk of more Westbrook injuries), over the current rebuild around young talent and high picks. It would be really tempting, but it'd take a better price than that I think.

FlashBolt
01-20-2014, 02:47 PM
Your credibility ends when you mentioned Bynum.

poleandreel
01-20-2014, 02:51 PM
Westbrook might have more value than that Sixers package in a vacuum, especially if you're optimistic about his injury stuff - but in terms of situations I have a really hard time seeing the Sixers choosing Westbrook+Thad (a team built for 3rd seeds and second round exits in the East for the next few years, whose only hope would be signing Love or someone in FA, and still run the risk of more Westbrook injuries), over the current rebuild around young talent and high picks. It would be really tempting, but it'd take a better price than that I think.

This is what I was trying to say. Package is good and should be accepted, but really shouldn't since it makes no sense for the sixers.

2-ONE-5
01-20-2014, 03:55 PM
if it makes no sense for one side then its not a good deal and should be accepted

PhillyFaninLA
01-20-2014, 03:55 PM
If you trade Westbrook, you might as well say goodbye to Durant when he becomes a FA.



You act as if that would be a stupid trade for the 76ers.


It would be a really bad deal and stupid deal for both teams.

A team that is rebuilding does not trade 2 young players and what good be a really good draft pick. They have a new coach that is proven at developing a young team and a GM that has a proven track record as well (ok as the 2nd in command but still).

PhillyFaninLA
01-20-2014, 03:57 PM
He's been working on his shot..... How many points does he average?

21 pounds of muscle?.... so now he's a 7fter who weighs 220 instead of 200.

He's a shot blocker? How many blocks he average per game?

Only fact is that he's out for the season and a championship team like the Thunder don't have time for that.


Its a fact he gained 21 pounds of muscle, its a fact he has been working on his shot, he was a shot blocker in college, I don't understand your point.....unless your just hating or talking out your....because its where your brain is located.

LJEATON26
01-20-2014, 04:05 PM
Why would you trade an all nba talent when your trying to win a championship? Love kd but he isn't going to be able to keep playing superman all season. To much wear and tear. Whether people think we do or not the thunder need Westbrook. More then anything he is this teams spark plug. Trading him would be idiotic and that will probably be proved over the next 2 games (Portland and San antonio)

Goose17
01-20-2014, 04:21 PM
WHY NOT?!?!?

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=k7y3gef

+Phoenix send two 2014 picks (Minny and D.C), two 2016 2nd round picks (all to OKC)


Oklahoma;

Jeremy Lin,
Thabo Sefolosha,
Kevin Durant,
Serge Ibaka,
Omer Asik.

Phoenix;

Russel Westbrook,
Goran Dragic,
P.J Tucker,
Channing Frye,
Alex Len.

Houston;

Eric Bledsoe,
James Harden,
Chandler Parsons,
Terrence Jones,
Dwight Howard.




YAY!!!!

:facepalm:

ChiSox219
01-20-2014, 05:04 PM
You gotta ride it out at this point. If the Thunder traded RW for Steph Curry +, they could've maxed out Harden and been the greatest offense ever assembled.

WES KOAST
01-20-2014, 05:09 PM
You gotta ride it out at this point. If the Thunder traded RW for Steph Curry +, they could've maxed out Harden and been the greatest offense ever assembled.

warriors would never have done that deal but I see it's a hypothetical

WES KOAST
01-20-2014, 05:11 PM
WHY NOT?!?!?

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=k7y3gef

+Phoenix send two 2014 picks (Minny and D.C), two 2016 2nd round picks (all to OKC)


Oklahoma;

Jeremy Lin,
Thabo Sefolosha,
Kevin Durant,
Serge Ibaka,
Omer Asik.

Phoenix;

Russel Westbrook,
Goran Dragic,
P.J Tucker,
Channing Frye,
Alex Len.

Houston;

Eric Bledsoe,
James Harden,
Chandler Parsons,
Terrence Jones,
Dwight Howard.




YAY!!!!

:facepalm:

hahaha okc got worse, Houston, phx got better

ChiSox219
01-20-2014, 05:14 PM
warriors would never have done that deal but I see it's a hypothetical

I doubt it was ever discussed but I'm curious why wouldnt GS have made the deal?

FlashBolt
01-20-2014, 05:16 PM
Actually, that lineup with OKC is pretty amazing. Lin imo is a 18/5/5 player. Very serviceable. He just needs an opportunity because other than NYK, he really hasn't had the full potential to shine. With Omer Asik, you have someone who can defend the lane and that will come very useful against tougher front court opponents such as Pacers or it will even destroy Miami. With Ibaka on that front court as well, you have a VERY dangerous front court as well as KD being the sniper he is. I like that team. As good as Westbrook is - I feel OKC can make better use of their salary.

bholly
01-20-2014, 05:24 PM
OKC laugh that deal off the phone. Houston probably don't do it either.

Bruno
01-20-2014, 06:00 PM
no. all you need to win in this league is a dominant one two punch. Westbrook is a bad man- they need to build around them.

Goose17
01-20-2014, 06:05 PM
OKC laugh that deal off the phone. Houston probably don't do it either.

You do realise it was a joke?

But Houston would do it in a heart beat. Bledsoe > Lin and Asik.

*Silver&Black*
01-20-2014, 06:23 PM
What about Jeff Teague, Millsap, and Korver for Westbrook deal (throwing in Perkins makes the contracts even)?

Teague/Korver/Durant/Millsap/Ibaka is a more balanced team. Hawks would finally have someone to build around, Westbrook/Horford isn't bad.

bholly
01-20-2014, 06:25 PM
You do realise it was a joke?

But Houston would do it in a heart beat. Bledsoe > Lin and Asik.

My bad, I didn't get as far as the facepalm. Sadly it's not that far out of the ordinary for this forum, so I couldn't tell just from the trade.

Whether or not Houston should do it, the way the whole Asik thing has gone makes me think Morey might hold out for more.

OlivaThor
01-20-2014, 07:07 PM
Westbrook + Jackson for CP3 and Hollins .. KD would have equal partner and pass first pg and Clippers would be easily most dynamic team in the NBA

SINCESTARBURY25
01-20-2014, 08:01 PM
Ill give you Melo,Felton, and Chandler for Westbrook, Ibaka and Perkins

Better than that make it a 3 team deal with Boston that will get OKC Rondo.

Thunder
pg-Rondo
sg-Lamb
sf-Durant
pf-Melo
C-Chandler

Knicks
pg-Westbrook
sg-Hardaway JR
sf-Wallace
pf-Ibaka
C-Perkins

Celtics
pg-Felton
sg-Shumpert
sf-idk
pf-Amare Stoudemire
c-Andrea Bargnani

PhillyFaninLA
01-20-2014, 08:10 PM
Ill give you Melo,Felton, and Chandler for Westbrook, Ibaka and Perkins

And about 5 first rounders to make that fair. Why not have them throw in Durant and agree to pay all the salaries....Westbrook I'd take of Melo, Ibaka I'd take over Felton, and Chandler of Perkins...not even remotely balanced.

NBA_Starter
01-20-2014, 08:24 PM
I don't think that is the best move at this point.

bholly
01-20-2014, 08:33 PM
Ill give you Melo,Felton, and Chandler for Westbrook, Ibaka and Perkins

Better than that make it a 3 team deal with Boston that will get OKC Rondo.

Thunder
pg-Rondo
sg-Lamb
sf-Durant
pf-Melo
C-Chandler

Knicks
pg-Westbrook
sg-Hardaway JR
sf-Wallace
pf-Ibaka
C-Perkins

Celtics
pg-Felton
sg-Shumpert
sf-idk
pf-Amare Stoudemire
c-Andrea Bargnani

You could give OKC their pick of exactly what they want of the Knicks' assets and I'm not even sure you get Westbrook and Perkins, let alone Ibaka.

Same deal with Boston - they aren't giving up Rondo and taking back Stoudemire unless it involves Melo, and probably not even then.

xxplayerxx23
01-20-2014, 09:03 PM
Ill give you Melo,Felton, and Chandler for Westbrook, Ibaka and Perkins

Better than that make it a 3 team deal with Boston that will get OKC Rondo.

Thunder
pg-Rondo
sg-Lamb
sf-Durant
pf-Melo
C-Chandler

Knicks
pg-Westbrook
sg-Hardaway JR
sf-Wallace
pf-Ibaka
C-Perkins

Celtics
pg-Felton
sg-Shumpert
sf-idk
pf-Amare Stoudemire
c-Andrea Bargnani

Stupid for anybody but thunder

xxplayerxx23
01-20-2014, 09:05 PM
You could give OKC their pick of exactly what they want of the Knicks' assets and I'm not even sure you get Westbrook and Perkins, let alone Ibaka.

Same deal with Boston - they aren't giving up Rondo and taking back Stoudemire unless it involves Melo, and probably not even then.

Lol Boston is tanking they don't want melo. Melo is better then rondo easy Okc does that in a damn second.

KnicksorBust
01-20-2014, 09:33 PM
Ill give you Melo,Felton, and Chandler for Westbrook, Ibaka and Perkins

Better than that make it a 3 team deal with Boston that will get OKC Rondo.

Thunder
pg-Rondo
sg-Lamb
sf-Durant
pf-Melo
C-Chandler

Knicks
pg-Westbrook
sg-Hardaway JR
sf-Wallace
pf-Ibaka
C-Perkins

Celtics
pg-Felton
sg-Shumpert
sf-idk
pf-Amare Stoudemire
c-Andrea Bargnani

Wtf have u done to the Celtics?

holditdown
01-20-2014, 09:49 PM
I would keep Westbrook.

Somebody needs to get it through his head that he's not the top dog on that team. Being the point guard he decides who gets to shoot, yet his favorite option is himself.

bholly
01-20-2014, 10:11 PM
Lol Boston is tanking they don't want melo. Melo is better then rondo easy Okc does that in a damn second.

I don't know how many times this has to be said, but the criteria for making a trade is often more than just 'do we get the best player?' or even 'does this make us better?'. Having Melo and Stoudemire puts them in a position where they can't win and can't improve. Why would they give up Rondo for that?

B'sCeltsPatsSox
01-20-2014, 10:20 PM
It would be a really bad deal and stupid deal for both teams.

A team that is rebuilding does not trade 2 young players and what good be a really good draft pick. They have a new coach that is proven at developing a young team and a GM that has a proven track record as well (ok as the 2nd in command but still).

Oh please, those 2 young players don't have the upside of becoming all-star caliber players, let alone a top 10 player that Westbrook is now. And that pick probably won't be anything higher than the 10th pick of the draft considering how many eastern teams are worse than the Pelicans.


Wtf have u done to the Celtics?

Made them the Knicks minus Melo, which I guess works if you're tanking:shrug:

bholly
01-20-2014, 10:29 PM
Oh please, those 2 young players don't have the upside of becoming all-star caliber players, let alone a top 10 player that Westbrook is now. And that pick probably won't be anything higher than the 10th pick of the draft considering how many eastern teams are worse than the Pelicans.



Made them the Knicks minus Melo, which I guess works if you're tanking:shrug:

NOP already have the 10th worst record and have been plummeting recently. Could easily go a few spots more than 10th. Also MCW and Noel (I'm assuming that's who you were talking about) absolutely have All Star potential.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
01-20-2014, 11:13 PM
NOP already have the 10th worst record and have been plummeting recently. Could easily go a few spots more than 10th. Also MCW and Noel (I'm assuming that's who you were talking about) absolutely have All Star potential.

Maybe Noel, but he's highly unlikely to reach it. And NOP will probably stay where they are in the standings considering that everyone that's lower than them is trying to tank, they'll separate themselves from those teams pretty soon.

KnicksorBust
01-20-2014, 11:19 PM
What about Jeff Teague, Millsap, and Korver for Westbrook deal (throwing in Perkins makes the contracts even)?

Teague/Korver/Durant/Millsap/Ibaka is a more balanced team. Hawks would finally have someone to build around, Westbrook/Horford isn't bad.

I actually like this deal for both teams. I wonder what OKC and Hawks fans would say.

Swashcuff
01-20-2014, 11:25 PM
Jesus Christ PSD is filled with a bunch on numbskulls.

Dudes seriously saying that the 76ers should trade away their best player (and a potential top 10 PG as early as next season), Nerlens Noel (who prior to his injury was seen as the best player available) and a top 5 protected pick in what is projected to be the best draft is years (need I remind you that Noel, Burke, Giannis and MCW all fell out of the top 5 this past season) for a Russell Westbrook who may or may not have injury concerns going forward.

Just when you thought you've seen it all on the net idiots pop up and show that it can still get worse.

HELL NO Philly wouldn't make that deal that's total and complete robbery.

Swashcuff
01-20-2014, 11:33 PM
Maybe Noel, but he's highly unlikely to reach it. And NOP will probably stay where they are in the standings considering that everyone that's lower than them is trying to tank, they'll separate themselves from those teams pretty soon.

Question have you paid attention the eastern conference Gs this season? Well in case you haven't MCW is actually in the running for a back up spot on the All Star team. If he's capable of being that good as a rookie what do you think he'd look like 3 years down the road.

You're probably the only person on this forum who'd believe that MCW doesn't have All Star potential. You must be mixing up all star with all NBA first team.

If Tyson Chandler and Joakim Noah can achieve their All Star Potential I don't see why Noel can't. He was a better player coming into the league than them both and nothing he has done has given anyone any indication that he isn't a hard worker.

KingstonHawke
01-21-2014, 08:31 AM
I wouldn't hire you as a GM. I would do the first 2 options but the last 2 are just insane ideas. First off Bynum hell no. And that last trade idea please oh please no I am a Knicks fan and i can tell you that you are giving up way to much for those 2.

If you want to do that trade ill take it in a heartbeat and i love my boy Shumps.

You didn't read the last part. I intentionally tried to overpay for guys so that I could avoid all of the, 76ers/Knicks would never take that deal comments. I'm actually surprised that people are still saying that about the 76ers. Maybe they don't realize how good Westbrook actually is. But just the fact that half of the people feel like Thunder would be getting robbed, and the other half think the 76ers would be getting robbed makes it a great deal.

As far as step 3. You really wouldn't pay Bynum $5 mil for one year to help you make a playoff run? That's not a business decision. That's some you hate Bynum mess. Thunder is desperate for a low post scorer, and is good enough as is that Bynum could only play 10 playoff games and that's all you would need.

You wouldn't give up a top 5 protected pick and your backup PG for Shump? Or would you not give up your 3rd PF and 4th center for Smith, last year's 6 man of the year?

KingstonHawke
01-21-2014, 09:07 AM
Westbrook might have more value than that Sixers package in a vacuum, especially if you're optimistic about his injury stuff - but in terms of situations I have a really hard time seeing the Sixers choosing Westbrook+Thad (a team built for 3rd seeds and second round exits in the East for the next few years, whose only hope would be signing Love or someone in FA, and still run the risk of more Westbrook injuries), over the current rebuild around young talent and high picks. It would be really tempting, but it'd take a better price than that I think.

I understand everything you're saying except that what would be your alternative plan? You're passing up on a team built for 3rd seeds with the tools to become a championship contender (money, stars)... in hopes that you can draft someone at 6-12 to pair with a Noel that you've never seen play in the NBA, and MCW who is having the same injury concerns as Westbrook? I know there'd be some money, but you're not getting any FA that can make a difference to go play with that roster. If Philly stays the course they wont sniff even the 3rd seed for at least 3 years as they wait for Noel to develop.


It would be a really bad deal and stupid deal for both teams.

A team that is rebuilding does not trade 2 young players and what good be a really good draft pick. They have a new coach that is proven at developing a young team and a GM that has a proven track record as well (ok as the 2nd in command but still).

I don't understand your logic. Westbrook is only 3 years older than MCW, and they both have injury concerns. Noel, and the top 5 protected pick could easily end up being bust all together. We've seen plenty of big men with knee issues never get back to being what they were. And we don't even know exactly what Noel was in regards to being an NBA center. It seems to me like you're pinning a lot of hopes on this draft pick that could end up not being anything special. If Davis keeps getting injured, you may not even get to cash that pick in til next year.

As far as the Thunder, what makes it a dumb deal for them? I love the idea of MCW being a 2nd option behind Durant, and JR Smith being surrounded by guys that can create shots for him like last year in NY. Everyone focuses on his decreased production, but they forget that he's being forced to create for himself more this year. Jason Kidd lost his shot at times, but in terms of setting up teammates was still magnificent last year.

Swashcuff
01-21-2014, 09:18 AM
I understand everything you're saying except that what would be your alternative plan? You're passing up on a team built for 3rd seeds with the tools to become a championship contender (money, stars)... in hopes that you can draft someone at 6-12 to pair with a Noel that you've never seen play in the NBA, and MCW who is having the same injury concerns as Westbrook? I know there'd be some money, but you're not getting any FA that can make a difference to go play with that roster. If Philly stays the course they wont sniff even the 3rd seed for at least 3 years as they wait for Noel to develop.



I don't understand your logic. Westbrook is only 3 years older than MCW, and they both have injury concerns. Noel, and the top 5 protected pick could easily end up being bust all together. We've seen plenty of big men with knee issues never get back to being what they were. And we don't even know exactly what Noel was in regards to being an NBA center. It seems to me like you're pinning a lot of hopes on this draft pick that could end up not being anything special. If Davis keeps getting injured, you may not even get to cash that pick in til next year.

As far as the Thunder, what makes it a dumb deal for them? I love the idea of MCW being a 2nd option behind Durant, and JR Smith being surrounded by guys that can create shots for him like last year in NY. Everyone focuses on his decreased production, but they forget that he's being forced to create for himself more this year. Jason Kidd lost his shot at times, but in terms of setting up teammates was still magnificent last year.

So what if Philly isn't able to build around Westy before its time for him to walk? We trade away two potential all stars and a lottery pick in one of the deepest drafts in years for a couple seasons rental of Westy? How on earth does that make any sense for the 76ers?

2-ONE-5
01-21-2014, 10:44 AM
Maybe Noel, but he's highly unlikely to reach it. And NOP will probably stay where they are in the standings considering that everyone that's lower than them is trying to tank, they'll separate themselves from those teams pretty soon.

based on ehat exactly makes you think Noel wont reach his potential?

mightybosstone
01-21-2014, 10:49 AM
OP's original idea is horrid. I could feasibly see a trade working out with Westbrook that could help OKC, but that most definitely is not it. MCW is nowhere near the player Westbrook is, Noel is a huge question mark at this point, and if the Thunder wanted to add Bynum, they would have done it already. That is not nearly as good of a basketball team as the one they currently have, and it's not remotely close.

If you're OKC, you only deal Westbrook if (A) You can get a superstar of similar value in return who is a better fit next to Durant, or (B) He specifically requests a trade. Right now, I don't see either of those two things happening, so it's very likely Westbrook will (and should) remain a Thunder for the foreseeable future.

mightybosstone
01-21-2014, 10:51 AM
Another point I'd like to make is that it makes no freaking sense for the Thunder to deal Westbrook after they let Harden go. Harden was probably a better fit next to Durant and every bit as good as Westbrook. If Presti had any inkling that he might want to deal Westy, he never would have traded Harden in the first place.

KG21
01-21-2014, 11:09 AM
You can't be serious that this "new" team that you constructed would be able to beat anyone. JR =MORON , Shump backup player.
Perk has it moments.
And let me not speak about Bowling Bynum.

True Sports Fan
01-21-2014, 12:22 PM
If you trade Westy I think Durant walks. Durant can't handle all the scoring.

KnicksorBust
01-21-2014, 02:01 PM
Another point I'd like to make is that it makes no freaking sense for the Thunder to deal Westbrook after they let Harden go. Harden was probably a better fit next to Durant and every bit as good as Westbrook. If Presti had any inkling that he might want to deal Westy, he never would have traded Harden in the first place.

Spot-on. This is why Westbrook should already be gone and Harden should still be in OKC playing with Durant and Dwight Howard as they go for their 2nd championship.

flea
01-21-2014, 02:07 PM
Meh, if it weren't for the knee issues I'd take Westbrook over Harden. He's a much better two-way player and really is about as good of a facilitator.

holditdown
01-21-2014, 04:55 PM
In the small sample size without Westbrook, Kevin Durant has played incredibly.

From Sports Illustrated online:

"As if being the second-best basketball player on the planet weren’t burden enough, Russell Westbrook’s latest knee surgery gave Durant a call to action. Gone were the days of merely bordering on a top-five usage rate. With Westbrook off the floor this season, Durant has used a cool 35 percent of his team’s possessions — a mark that would solidly lead the league. Durant no longer can work so consistently off the ball because Oklahoma City needs him to be in control as often as possible, contorting the defense in a way that no other healthy Thunder player can. In the absence of a primary ball handler, Durant has been forced to become one.

The degree to which he’s succeeded in that role is astonishing. Durant was expected to score in volume even without Westbrook, but to put up a career-high 54 points on 28 shots against one of the best defensive teams in the league — as he did versus the Warriors on Friday — is a fundamentally profound achievement. To completely invert his scoring profile — from having 68.1 percent of his field goals assisted when Westbrook plays to just 31.8 percent when operating without his superstar teammate — at no cost to his scoring efficiency is remarkable, even for a player this flexible. All that Durant does as a ball handler and playmaker is dissected in film rooms across the league, and yet he’s responded by turning the ball over less frequently, getting to the free-throw line with outrageous frequency and scorching along with typically fabulous efficiency".

Sandman
01-22-2014, 02:17 AM
i am going to post this in every related thread until their careers are over

the Thunder should have traded Westbrook or Harden+ to the Magic for Dwight Howard

I dont care what his list was you cannot tell me Dwight would not have signed in OKC

oh well.

mightybosstone
01-22-2014, 02:39 AM
Meh, if it weren't for the knee issues I'd take Westbrook over Harden. He's a much better two-way player and really is about as good of a facilitator.

I'd actually give Westy an edge in terms of facilitation, but Harden is the superior outside shooter and just a far more efficient overall player. He also doesn't need to have the ball in his hands quite as much to be effective as Westy does. He can defer to other players and still hit spot perimeter jumpers at a high rate.

KniCks4LiFe
01-22-2014, 05:30 AM
no and you saw last year in the playoffs why it was a no.

- Brooks is not that great of a coach
- KD stays out of the pain
- KD tires out
- Lamb, Jackson, Adams, they aren't ready to play Robin and Alfred
- Their defense in the backcourt would struggle immensely

You first got to give me the premium PG you are replacing Westbrook for. When you come up w/ that name then discuss if dealing him is wise.

KingstonHawke
01-22-2014, 07:11 AM
So what if Philly isn't able to build around Westy before its time for him to walk? We trade away two potential all stars and a lottery pick in one of the deepest drafts in years for a couple seasons rental of Westy? How on earth does that make any sense for the 76ers?

I'm trying to be fair, but I really still don't get your logic. Westbrook has the same exact amount of years on his deal that Noel and MCW do. And as far as building around someone... it's a lot easier to build around Westbrook than Noel and MCW. Everyone knows that stars lure other stars. As far as the pick, if that pick ends up being where it is now #10, who would you draft that would make that big of a difference? The draft is deep. But there are only 2 players I really see coming in and changing a franchise from day one and that's Julius Randle and Marcus Smart.


OP's original idea is horrid. I could feasibly see a trade working out with Westbrook that could help OKC, but that most definitely is not it. MCW is nowhere near the player Westbrook is, Noel is a huge question mark at this point, and if the Thunder wanted to add Bynum, they would have done it already. That is not nearly as good of a basketball team as the one they currently have, and it's not remotely close.

If you're OKC, you only deal Westbrook if (A) You can get a superstar of similar value in return who is a better fit next to Durant, or (B) He specifically requests a trade. Right now, I don't see either of those two things happening, so it's very likely Westbrook will (and should) remain a Thunder for the foreseeable future.

You think Philly would be robbing the Thunder, so does half of this forum. The other half thinks that the Thunder would be robbing Philly. By definition that means you think it's an awesome trade. It's not one GMs job to think that the other GM is getting equal value. It's his job to make deals that he thinks the other GM is stupid for agreeing to. If you were one GM, and B'sCeltsPatsSox was the other GM, BOTH of you would hang up the phone the happiest men in the world. Basically what I'm saying, is be smart enough to know the distinction between not liking a trade personally, and calling someone an idiot... all the while proving to everything that you are actually an idiot.

One more thing. Harden isn't half the player on defense that Westbrook is. So overall, they'd of been ******** to keep him over Westbrook.

detzfish
01-22-2014, 07:29 AM
No they should not unless they get blown away with a ridiculous offer. In my opinion, if I'm starting a franchise I would rather have Westbrook then harden so they made the right decision last season if they had to get rid of one of them.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 09:54 AM
I'm trying to be fair, but I really still don't get your logic. Westbrook has the same exact amount of years on his deal that Noel and MCW do. And as far as building around someone... it's a lot easier to build around Westbrook than Noel and MCW. Everyone knows that stars lure other stars. As far as the pick, if that pick ends up being where it is now #10, who would you draft that would make that big of a difference? The draft is deep. But there are only 2 players I really see coming in and changing a franchise from day one and that's Julius Randle and Marcus Smart.

What do the vast majority of superstar calibre players do on teams that are "rebuilding"?

Answer yourself that question and you'd get my logic.

What stars has Carmelo lured to NY? What stars has Kevin Love lured to Minny or KG in Minny for that matter. What stars has Dirk lured to Dallas? This stars lure more stars thing is trash. If the organization and city/state isn't what those stars are looking for no one is going to come play for you.

You asking who we'd draft at 10 that would make a big difference is foolish. MCW was picked at number 11 the year before so was Klay, same year Kahwi was a number 15, Paul George was picked at 10 the year before and Bledsoe at 18 and not too long ago our previous franchise PG Jrue Holiday was taken at 17 with Ty Lawson and Jeff Teague coming right after him. These are just a handful of players that were chosen between 10-18 in the last 5 years that have all star potential and a large majority of the others being major contributors or A/B grade talents/prospects. Would you like me to go further back?

mightybosstone
01-22-2014, 10:49 AM
You think Philly would be robbing the Thunder, so does half of this forum. The other half thinks that the Thunder would be robbing Philly. By definition that means you think it's an awesome trade. It's not one GMs job to think that the other GM is getting equal value. It's his job to make deals that he thinks the other GM is stupid for agreeing to. If you were one GM, and B'sCeltsPatsSox was the other GM, BOTH of you would hang up the phone the happiest men in the world. Basically what I'm saying, is be smart enough to know the distinction between not liking a trade personally, and calling someone an idiot... all the while proving to everything that you are actually an idiot.
I have no idea what your point is here, but I don't believe I ever once called you an idiot. I said it was a horrible idea. And just because the entirety of PSD is split on which side of the trade is worse does not make it a good deal. It makes it an awful one. (I also don't think Philly would be robbing the Thunder... It's the other way around)

Look at it from the Thunder's perspective. You just got rid of one of your three best players, but you're still one of the 2-3 best teams in the West and you're about to get your No. 2 guy back. He and Durant have built chemistry with one another and splitting them up might cause a rift between Durant and the organization. Also, your deal only nets the Thunder a lot of hypothetical pieces. MCW is still extremely raw, Noel hasn't stepped onto the court yet and there's no telling what, who or how talented Philly's pick will end up being in the draft. Meanwhile, Westy is a top 10-12 guy in the league right now rather than 3-5 years from now. For a team trying to contend now, that deal makes NO SENSE.

Now let's look at it from Philly's perspective. You're in full-on rebuild mode. You've got two of arguably the most talented players from last year's draft and a very sexy pick coming up in one of the deepest drafts in years. Certainly you want to be competitive as soon as possible, but you don't care about winning a championship in the next 2-3 years. Trading your three strongest assets for Westbrook and how do you build around him? Re-sign Hawes and Turner? Pray that other stars will want to come to Philly because of Westbrook's presence and bank on free agency? For a rebuilding team, Philly is in as good a shape as anybody, and trading for Westbrook would completely change their current plan and possibly put them in worse shape than before. So for Philly, this deal makes NO SENSE.

Just because two teams can make a trade and just because the value seems fair on paper doesn't mean it makes sense for either team. You need to differentiate between the two and realize that real life is not 2K14.


One more thing. Harden isn't half the player on defense that Westbrook is. So overall, they'd of been ******** to keep him over Westbrook.
And Westbrook is not the scorer or shooter that Harden is, so it goes both ways. Both guys are similarly talented and would have made for solid compliments to Durant, but I think Harden is a better fit on paper than Westbrook.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 11:16 AM
What do the vast majority of superstar calibre players do on teams that are "rebuilding"?

Answer yourself that question and you'd get my logic.

What stars has Carmelo lured to NY? What stars has Kevin Love lured to Minny or KG in Minny for that matter. What stars has Dirk lured to Dallas? This stars lure more stars thing is trash. If the organization and city/state isn't what those stars are looking for no one is going to come play for you.

You asking who we'd draft at 10 that would make a big difference is foolish. MCW was picked at number 11 the year before so was Klay, same year Kahwi was a number 15, Paul George was picked at 10 the year before and Bledsoe at 18 and not too long ago our previous franchise PG Jrue Holiday was taken at 17 with Ty Lawson and Jeff Teague coming right after him. These are just a handful of players that were chosen between 10-18 in the last 5 years that have all star potential and a large majority of the others being major contributors or A/B grade talents/prospects. Would you like me to go further back?
Pretty sure it was STAT that lured Carmelo to NY. They haven't really had cap space to do anything else.

LJEATON26
01-22-2014, 12:09 PM
Okc gets robbed in that three team deal. The best two players in the deal go to Houston and Phoenix and we aren't rebuilding so the picks are that important especially since right now we already have 2 1st round picks in this draft. The golden state trade would be interesting just to see Durant and curry on the same team. With a healthy Westbrook I think he is still the better all around player but curry can light it up.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 12:47 PM
Pretty sure it was STAT that lured Carmelo to NY. They haven't really had cap space to do anything else.

Not sure stat really did that. He went where the money and opportunity to be a franchise player was. Melo had his eyes set on NY Amar'e or no Amar'e. Point still stands however. What stars or former stars (that they could have gotten within the cap) has Melo lured there?

People have this idea that once a star/superstar is in a certain city that automatically means others are going to follow, that's not always the case.

ManRam
01-22-2014, 01:53 PM
Dumb thread is dumb.

farren.louis
01-22-2014, 02:15 PM
Why would they go From Championship contenders to nothing. This is a Durant built team, It's up too Westbrook now to maybe take better shots or just give the ball to Durant. Besides they went the finals together heck no you dont trade him . Not for carter-willams and shemphurt anyway

Goose17
01-22-2014, 02:26 PM
People have this idea that once a star/superstar is in a certain city that automatically means others are going to follow, that's not always the case.

It's pretty much true, but one, Melo is criminally overrated. And let's face it, he's not the most likable guy, Durant and Lebron seem like great people, the kind of guys you would hang out with, Melo and Kobe? Not so much.

LJEATON26
01-22-2014, 02:48 PM
As a thunder fan I don't want melo. Some of you guys say Westbrook takes away Durant shots. melo would be 10x worse. In all honesty there aren't many players I would take for him.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 02:50 PM
Not sure stat really did that. He went where the money and opportunity to be a franchise player was. Melo had his eyes set on NY Amar'e or no Amar'e. Point still stands however. What stars or former stars (that they could have gotten within the cap) has Melo lured there?

People have this idea that once a star/superstar is in a certain city that automatically means others are going to follow, that's not always the case.

I can agree that its not automatic, it is definitely more complicated than that. Ask Chris Paul or Dwight Howard -- they both wanted to go to NY/BK and couldn't work it out.

But at the same time you have the big 3 getting together in Boston, in Miami. You had Grant Hill and TMac 10 years ago, almost Tmac/Hill and Duncan.

Clips had Baron Davis sign in LA to play with Brand only to get screwed overnight w/ Brand walking to Philly.

With NYK specifically they boxed themselves in. They picked up Kidd, Camby, Rasheed and Artest but they haven't had money to do anything else. IIRC, guys like Battier, Miller, Allen didn't take the min they all got the MLE.

Having star players definitely greases the wheels for free agents but no its not automatic.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 02:56 PM
I can agree that its not automatic, it is definitely more complicated than that. Ask Chris Paul or Dwight Howard -- they both wanted to go to NY/BK and couldn't work it out.

But at the same time you have the big 3 getting together in Boston, in Miami. You had Grant Hill and TMac 10 years ago, almost Tmac/Hill and Duncan.

Clips had Baron Davis sign in LA to play with Brand only to get screwed overnight w/ Brand walking to Philly.

With NYK specifically they boxed themselves in. They picked up Kidd, Camby, Rasheed and Artest but they haven't had money to do anything else. IIRC, guys like Battier, Miller, Allen didn't take the min they all got the MLE.

Having star players definitely greases the wheels for free agents but no its not automatic.

Explain to me Kevin Garnett why couldn't he lure anyone to Minny?

You're speaking of NY/BK the biggest sports market in the US. Mia which has no state income tax etc.

CP3 and Dwight did not want to go NY to play with Melo or whoever their reasons would have had much deeper roots than that.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 02:57 PM
It's pretty much true, but one, Melo is criminally overrated. And let's face it, he's not the most likable guy, Durant and Lebron seem like great people, the kind of guys you would hang out with, Melo and Kobe? Not so much.

No its not pretty much true. Its a myth. The are other factors which contribute much more to a player's decision than other players on the team.

Ask yourself why couldn't "lure" Wade and Bosh? Or Bosh LeBron and Wade. The prospect of playing in Miami (Florida) with someone the caliber of Pat Riley at the helm is what was most intriguing.

What are the benefits of coming to Philly to play if Russell Westbrook is our franchise player?

LJEATON26
01-22-2014, 02:57 PM
Spot-on. This is why Westbrook should already be gone and Harden should still be in OKC playing with Durant and Dwight Howard as they go for their 2nd championship.

Westbrook is better then harden. Flopping isn't a very good defense strategy and that's all that harden knows how to do. Dwight should be given Glen davis' nickname. Makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 03:31 PM
Explain to me Kevin Garnett why couldn't he lure anyone to Minny?
Well, these players need to be available too. Top 10 players don't change teams every season. KG is both a good and bad example because while Minnesota never picked up a 2nd star, KG obviously wanted to leave to team up with other stars.

Any situation where one star "lures" another involves one star bailing on his team that couldn't get it done.

And you need cap space too. You could say "wtf 10 years in Minny they didn't have the cap space?" but they tried to make moves. Marbury forced his way out of town because he wanted to be THE guy so yeah, in his case it had the OPPOSITE affect. They picked up Sprewell and Cassel at some point. They got docked 3 first round picks for trying to circumvent the salary cap to sign Joe Smith. They blew money on Terrell Brandon, Michael Olowakandi, etc.

I don't know where to look it up but looking at the names over the years I imagine they were right at the salary cap.

Like I said its not automatic, I'm sure you could find plenty of examples of both sides.


You're speaking of NY/BK the biggest sports market in the US. Mia which has no state income tax etc.

CP3 and Dwight did not want to go NY to play with Melo or whoever their reasons would have had much deeper roots than that.
So the only reason the Heat teamed up was the state income tax? You could point that out as the reason they took "less money" to play in Miami, but it doesn't really help your argument because that just means they got the same amount of money there that they would have made anywhere else.

You don't know why CP3 or Howard wanted to play in NY, you can't assume what they think and use that to support an argument about what players want.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 03:34 PM
No its not pretty much true. Its a myth. The are other factors which contribute much more to a player's decision than other players on the team.

Ask yourself why couldn't "lure" Wade and Bosh? Or Bosh LeBron and Wade. The prospect of playing in Miami (Florida) with someone the caliber of Pat Riley at the helm is what was most intriguing.

What are the benefits of coming to Philly to play if Russell Westbrook is our franchise player?
These teams didn't have the cap space. The Heat were the only team that could come close to 3 max contracts.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 03:35 PM
Well, these players need to be available too. Top 10 players don't change teams every season. KG is both a good and bad example because while Minnesota never picked up a 2nd star, KG obviously wanted to leave to team up with other stars.

Any situation where one star "lures" another involves one star bailing on his team that couldn't get it done.

And you need cap space too. You could say "wtf 10 years in Minny they didn't have the cap space?" but they tried to make moves. Marbury forced his way out of town because he wanted to be THE guy so yeah, in his case it had the OPPOSITE affect. They picked up Sprewell and Cassel at some point. They got docked 3 first round picks for trying to circumvent the salary cap to sign Joe Smith. They blew money on Terrell Brandon, Michael Olowakandi, etc.

I don't know where to look it up but looking at the names over the years I imagine they were right at the salary cap.

Like I said its not automatic, I'm sure you could find plenty of examples of both sides.


So the only reason the Heat teamed up was the state income tax? You could point that out as the reason they took "less money" to play in Miami, but it doesn't really help your argument because that just means they got the same amount of money there that they would have made anywhere else.

You don't know why CP3 or Howard wanted to play in NY, you can't assume what they think and use that to support an argument about what players want.

If you read my post you'd see that I said that was not the only reason but a major reason.

You still haven't replied as to why KG couldn't lure players. People are assuming that if Westbrook goes to Philly he alone will be able to lure other players.

You're saying that I don't know why they wanted to play in NY? Do you?

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 03:39 PM
These teams didn't have the cap space. The Heat were the only team that could come close to 3 max contracts.

1. The Heat did not have cap space either that is why they traded away so many players so cheaply.
2. Its completely feasible to think that TO and Cleveland could have shed enough cap if they had the same plans as the Heat.
3. They did not sign max contracts but salary wise are making more money in Florida than they would have in Ohio or Canada.

The Heat made the cap space in order to make this happen. The kicker however was the fact that despite not taking max money they'd still get paid as if they did if that wasn't enough you have the many many selling points of the City of Miami and the management of the Heat.

Had Wade been a member of the 76ers and we had the space NO WAY he would have been able to "lure" Bron and Bosh.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 03:50 PM
If you read my post you'd see that I said that was not the only reason but a major reason.
Then you didn't need to ask about Kevin Garnett after I said "I can agree that its not automatic, it is definitely more complicated than that." or "Having star players definitely greases the wheels for free agents but no its not automatic."

You still haven't replied as to why KG couldn't lure players. People are assuming that if Westbrook goes to Philly he alone will be able to lure other players.
Cap space & free agents. What star changed teams at that point in time and where was the cap space for the Wolves to facilitate?

Re: Westbrook in particular, are he and Kevin Love still buddies? That doesn't even have to be a star luring a star that is a direct connection to one of the 2 or 3 top guys that will be available.

You're saying that I don't know why they wanted to play in NY? Do you?
I don't truly know why they wanted to play in NY but we don't need to guess at why they wanted to leave Orlando & New Orleans.

I'm pretty sure both of these guys even said as much -- the CP3 wedding toast and Dwight saying he wanted to play with Anthony Morrow, Gerald Wallace & Deron Williams in an interview. You can choose not to believe them if you want (esp a random wedding toast) but it came from both horses' mouths at some point.

2-ONE-5
01-22-2014, 03:55 PM
1. The Heat did not have cap space either that is why they traded away so many players so cheaply.
2. Its completely feasible to think that TO and Cleveland could have shed enough cap if they had the same plans as the Heat.
3. They did not sign max contracts but salary wise are making more money in Florida than they would have in Ohio or Canada.

The Heat made the cap space in order to make this happen. The kicker however was the fact that despite not taking max money they'd still get paid as if they did if that wasn't enough you have the many many selling points of the City of Miami and the management of the Heat.

Had Wade been a member of the 76ers and we had the space NO WAY he would have been able to "lure" Bron and Bosh.

woah i disagree big time. You are telling me that Wade wouldnt have been able to lure James and Bosh to a top 5 major sports market with the history a team like the Sixers have?

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 03:56 PM
Then you didn't need to ask about Kevin Garnett after I said "I can agree that its not automatic, it is definitely more complicated than that." or "Having star players definitely greases the wheels for free agents but no its not automatic."

Cap space & free agents. What star changed teams at that point in time and where was the cap space for the Wolves to facilitate?

Re: Westbrook in particular, are he and Kevin Love still buddies? That doesn't even have to be a star luring a star that is a direct connection to one of the 2 or 3 top guys that will be available.

I don't truly know why they wanted to play in NY but we don't need to guess at why they wanted to leave Orlando & New Orleans.

I'm pretty sure both of these guys even said as much -- the CP3 wedding toast and Dwight saying he wanted to play with Anthony Morrow, Gerald Wallace & Deron Williams in an interview. You can choose not to believe them if you want (esp a random wedding toast) but it came from both horses' mouths at some point.

You're asking me what star changed teams but that in itself defeats your point.

If Garnett alone had the ability to lure players those same players who stayed on their respective teams would have changed teams to play with him.

Also the players can say whatever they want but if all the dominoes don't fall into place then no way in hell are they going to go to a team just to play with another player.

Player A is a top 10 player in the league and Free Agents. Player B and C are two top 5 players. 1 plays for the Lakers and the other plays for the Timberwolves. Both the Lakers and the Timberwolves have the money to sign player A historically speaking in the NBA where is player A more likely to end up?

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 03:59 PM
woah i disagree big time. You are telling me that Wade wouldnt have been able to lure James and Bosh to a top 5 major sports market with the history a team like the Sixers have?

Have you taken a look at our front office (at that time)? Even if Wade can somehow coax them into wanting to play with him. What do you think they'd say when they look at the RECENT history of our organization.

Winnings titles 30+ years ago doesn't mean squat if we don't look like the type of franchise that can do all they have to in order to get our team where we need it to be and keep it there.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 04:02 PM
1. The Heat did not have cap space either that is why they traded away so many players so cheaply.
2. Its completely feasible to think that TO and Cleveland could have shed enough cap if they had the same plans as the Heat.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I can't really disagree -- if TO/Cleveland shed enough cap space they could have pulled something off. But, they didn't and the Heat did. In fact I don't think Toronto or Cleveland had any cap space at all.

3. They did not sign max contracts but salary wise are making more money in Florida than they would have in Ohio or Canada.
Yes, this is a true fact.

The Heat made the cap space in order to make this happen. The kicker however was the fact that despite not taking max money they'd still get paid as if they did if that wasn't enough you have the many many selling points of the City of Miami and the management of the Heat.

Had Wade been a member of the 76ers and we had the space NO WAY he would have been able to "lure" Bron and Bosh.
Who would have thought Grant Hill & TMac would have come to Orlando? Hard to tell at this point.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 04:09 PM
I'm not sure what your point is here. I can't really disagree -- if TO/Cleveland shed enough cap space they could have pulled something off. But, they didn't and the Heat did. In fact I don't think Toronto or Cleveland had any cap space at all.

Yup they did. Are you forgetting the ongoing speculation as to whether Amar'e would go to Cleveland or Wade to TO. They both could have pulled it off (if all players were willing to take the cut that the did to play in Florida) with the right trades that would have shed salary.


Yes, this is a true fact.

Who would have thought Grant Hill & TMac would have come to Orlando? Hard to tell at this point.

I can tell you this much they didn't go to Orlando because they were lured by another superstar. T-Mac left a superstar to go to Orlando and be the man. They went because of the many other factors that go into a FA making a decision where to go.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 04:11 PM
You're asking me what star changed teams but that in itself defeats your point.
It is hard to change teams if you are not a free agent. Then the only way to lure another player to your team is to buy him a ticket.

If Garnett alone had the ability to lure players those same players who stayed on their respective teams would have changed teams to play with him.
For the league min or the MLE?

Also the players can say whatever they want but if all the dominoes don't fall into place then no way in hell are they going to go to a team just to play with another player.
Yes, this is why Howard is still complaining about not being traded to BK.

Player A is a top 10 player in the league and Free Agents. Player B and C are two top 5 players. 1 plays for the Lakers and the other plays for the Timberwolves. Both the Lakers and the Timberwolves have the money to sign player A historically speaking in the NBA where is player A more likely to end up?
Well for one this just happened with Dwight Howard and he didn't choose the Lakers.

Two, you are talking about deciding between two top 5 players, so either way he is signing with another star, no?

JordansBulls
01-22-2014, 04:16 PM
Would the Knicks entertain trading Melo for Westbrook?

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 04:18 PM
It is hard to change teams if you are not a free agent. Then the only way to lure another player to your team is to buy him a ticket.

Again if this whole luring idea what as solid as you make it out to be players would ensure that they test FA in order to get an opportunity to play with a player the calibre of Kevin Garnett.


For the league min or the MLE?

Many of the years in which the Timberwolves missed the playoffs they had the cap space to sign quality FAs.


Yes, this is why Howard is still complaining about not being traded to BK.

Well for one this just happened with Dwight Howard and he didn't choose the Lakers.

Two, you are talking about deciding between two top 5 players, so either way he is signing with another star, no?

I asked Minny.

Could you kindly answer the question?

Texas is another state with no state income tax and is one of the biggest markets in American Sports right?

The point you are not getting its not about the PLAYER its about other more important factors. The FO, the coaching staff, the organization's history and market in which they play in.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 04:21 PM
Yup they did. Are you forgetting the ongoing speculation as to whether Amar'e would go to Cleveland or Wade to TO. They both could have pulled it off (if all players were willing to take the cut that the did to play in Florida) with the right trades that would have shed salary.
But they didn't, sooo...... I don't know what your point is. And, in any of these imaginary scenarios stars would have teamed up. A lot of teams could have pulled something off, nobody did. Cleveland could have kept LeBron if they acquired Amare -- another star. But again, they didn't, so I'm not sure what this trade rumor from 5 years ago proves.

I can tell you this much they didn't go to Orlando because they were lured by another superstar. They went because of the many other factors that go into a FA making a decision where to go.
What did they go to Orlando for? the night life? Disney World? Cocoa Beach? Or do you have no clue at all, you're just really sure it didnt have anything to do with anybody on the team?

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 04:26 PM
But they didn't, sooo...... I don't know what your point is. And, in any of these imaginary scenarios stars would have teamed up. A lot of teams could have pulled something off, nobody did. Cleveland could have kept LeBron if they acquired Amare -- another star. But again, they didn't, so I'm not sure what this trade rumor from 5 years ago proves.

What did they go to Orlando for? the night life? Disney World? Cocoa Beach? Or do you have no clue at all, you're just really sure it didnt have anything to do with anybody on the team?

You are a classic.

First you're telling me that players change teams because they are lured now you're saying that I don't have a clue as to why a player goes somewhere else.

So you KNOW that players change teams because other players lure them there but you also KNOW that I don't know why they go. You must be in these players heads then.

Oh and these imaginary scenarios are just to further prove whatever point you're trying to make wrong. LOTS of guys in the league are friends and have great respect for one another but for some reason we don't see them being lured elsewhere or luring anyone anywhere. Why is that? You seem to know everything while I know nothing. Tell us why.

ManRam
01-22-2014, 04:35 PM
Would the Knicks entertain trading Melo for Westbrook?

They'd be idiots not to.

And the Thunder would be idiots to even pick up the phone.

Sandman
01-22-2014, 04:36 PM
Again if this whole luring idea what as solid as you make it out to be players would ensure that they test FA in order to get an opportunity to play with a player the calibre of Kevin Garnett.
Cart before the horse. There is no opportunity to play with KG when the Wolves don't have the means to facilitate.

Many of the years in which the Timberwolves missed the playoffs they had the cap space to sign quality FAs.
When and how much? This just went from "stars" to "quality players". They frequently acquired quality players and overpaid others.

I asked Minny.

Could you kindly answer the question?

Texas is another state with no state income tax and is one of the biggest markets in American Sports right?
"Two, you are talking about deciding between two top 5 players, so either way he is signing with another star, no?"

The point you are not getting its not about the PLAYER its about other more important factors. The FO, the coaching staff, the organization's history and market in which they play in.
The teammates & prospects of winning are AT LEAST as important, and likely much more central to the decision, than any of these other random factors you are throwing out.

You are a classic.

First you're telling me that players change teams because they are lured now you're saying that I don't have a clue as to why a player goes somewhere else.
I don't think I said either one of these things.

So you KNOW that players change teams because other players lure them there but you also KNOW that I don't know why they go. You must be in these players heads then.
You just restated the last sentence and I still don't know what you are talking about.

Oh and these imaginary scenarios are just to further prove whatever point you're trying to make wrong. LOTS of guys in the league are friends and have great respect for one another but for some reason we don't see them being lured elsewhere or luring anyone anywhere. Why is that? You seem to know everything while I know nothing. Tell us why.
Now I really have no clue what you are talking about. What about Amare Stoudemire not being traded to Cleveland means players do not team up? What about the Cavaliers and Raptors being able to clear space, but ultimately not doing so, means players do not team up?

KingstonHawke
01-22-2014, 04:54 PM
What do the vast majority of superstar calibre players do on teams that are "rebuilding"?

Answer yourself that question and you'd get my logic.

What stars has Carmelo lured to NY? What stars has Kevin Love lured to Minny or KG in Minny for that matter. What stars has Dirk lured to Dallas? This stars lure more stars thing is trash. If the organization and city/state isn't what those stars are looking for no one is going to come play for you.

You asking who we'd draft at 10 that would make a big difference is foolish. MCW was picked at number 11 the year before so was Klay, same year Kahwi was a number 15, Paul George was picked at 10 the year before and Bledsoe at 18 and not too long ago our previous franchise PG Jrue Holiday was taken at 17 with Ty Lawson and Jeff Teague coming right after him. These are just a handful of players that were chosen between 10-18 in the last 5 years that have all star potential and a large majority of the others being major contributors or A/B grade talents/prospects. Would you like me to go further back?

1. You really think that a team with the assets of Westbrook, Wroten, Evans, Young, Hawes and cap space would be in rebuilding mode for 4 years? They could move Evans and Wroten for Monroe, sign Melo outright and they'd be championship contenders and RW would still have 3 years left on his deal.

2. NY doesn't have any money. Players would love playing in NY with Melo if it was even a possibility. Just look at the last year teams had a bunch of money. Melo, Bosh, and Lebron all chose places where another star already was. KG attracted stars to MN (Spreewell and Cassel), and then went to Boston because of a star Pierce.

3. It's not foolish. What I'm illustrating, and what you seem to not understand is that drafting at 10 produces more bust than gems. For every player that you can name that was taken 8-12 that ended up being good, I can name 2 that weren't. Your whole idea is that you would gamble with 3 assets that could end up not being worth much, and that's cool. My idea is that instead of gambling, I'd much rather take the safer and faster road.

4. Never lose site of the business aspect. Westbrook sales more tickets and jerseys than those 3 players combined easily. Maybe you get stuck as the 3 seed, but that's a lot better than being the 8 seed and hoping to one day be a championship team.


I have no idea what your point is here, but I don't believe I ever once called you an idiot. I said it was a horrible idea. And just because the entirety of PSD is split on which side of the trade is worse does not make it a good deal. It makes it an awful one. (I also don't think Philly would be robbing the Thunder... It's the other way around)

Look at it from the Thunder's perspective. You just got rid of one of your three best players, but you're still one of the 2-3 best teams in the West and you're about to get your No. 2 guy back. He and Durant have built chemistry with one another and splitting them up might cause a rift between Durant and the organization. Also, your deal only nets the Thunder a lot of hypothetical pieces. MCW is still extremely raw, Noel hasn't stepped onto the court yet and there's no telling what, who or how talented Philly's pick will end up being in the draft. Meanwhile, Westy is a top 10-12 guy in the league right now rather than 3-5 years from now. For a team trying to contend now, that deal makes NO SENSE.

Now let's look at it from Philly's perspective. You're in full-on rebuild mode. You've got two of arguably the most talented players from last year's draft and a very sexy pick coming up in one of the deepest drafts in years. Certainly you want to be competitive as soon as possible, but you don't care about winning a championship in the next 2-3 years. Trading your three strongest assets for Westbrook and how do you build around him? Re-sign Hawes and Turner? Pray that other stars will want to come to Philly because of Westbrook's presence and bank on free agency? For a rebuilding team, Philly is in as good a shape as anybody, and trading for Westbrook would completely change their current plan and possibly put them in worse shape than before. So for Philly, this deal makes NO SENSE.

Just because two teams can make a trade and just because the value seems fair on paper doesn't mean it makes sense for either team. You need to differentiate between the two and realize that real life is not 2K14.


You just changed your stance completely lol. It's one thing if everyone was saying it's a bad deal for both. But what you said, and what most people said, is that one side would be getting all of the benefit and the other wouldn't. And two sentences in you changed your stance again. Now you're saying it's not a robbery for either team, that it's a bad deal for both teams. Which one is it???

And FYI, I wouldn't simply re-sign Hawes and Evans. I'd go after Monroe with Evans and use Hawes money to build around them. It's not Love or bust. Although having Love's good friend and a young franchise center would help to lure him. You'd still have rentals like Pau and Nowitski out there.

2-ONE-5
01-22-2014, 05:00 PM
Have you taken a look at our front office (at that time)? Even if Wade can somehow coax them into wanting to play with him. What do you think they'd say when they look at the RECENT history of our organization.

Winnings titles 30+ years ago doesn't mean squat if we don't look like the type of franchise that can do all they have to in order to get our team where we need it to be and keep it there.

all irrelevant. you have a major city and super star and the cap space or ability to make that move, they easily would have joined Wade here i am 100% sure of that

KingstonHawke
01-22-2014, 05:00 PM
I can tell you this much they didn't go to Orlando because they were lured by another superstar. T-Mac left a superstar to go to Orlando and be the man. They went because of the many other factors that go into a FA making a decision where to go.

This is 100% false. T-Mac has said it himself. He went to Orlando because he didn't like how his current coach was using him and it was a tough decision because he had Carter in Toronto, but that what ultimately helped him make the decision was the chance to play with Duncan and Hill (if he had it his way he'd of been the 3rd option).

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 05:08 PM
1. You really think that a team with the assets of Westbrook, Wroten, Evans, Young, Hawes and cap space would be in rebuilding mode for 4 years? They could move Evans and Wroten for Monroe, sign Melo outright and they'd be championship contenders and RW would still have 3 years left on his deal.

2. NY doesn't have any money. Players would love playing in NY with Melo if it was even a possibility. Just look at the last year teams had a bunch of money. Melo, Bosh, and Lebron all chose places where another star already was. KG attracted stars to MN (Spreewell and Cassel), and then went to Boston because of a star Pierce.

3. It's not foolish. What I'm illustrating, and what you seem to not understand is that drafting at 10 produces more bust than gems. For every player that you can name that was taken 8-12 that ended up being good, I can name 2 that weren't. Your whole idea is that you would gamble with 3 assets that could end up not being worth much, and that's cool. My idea is that instead of gambling, I'd much rather take the safer and faster road.

4. Never lose site of the business aspect. Westbrook sales more tickets and jerseys than those 3 players combined easily. Maybe you get stuck as the 3 seed, but that's a lot better than being the 8 seed and hoping to one day be a championship team.

The fact that you're calling Evan Turner Evans is all I need to read to know exactly where you stand on this argument. Haha.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 05:09 PM
all irrelevant. you have a major city and super star and the cap space or ability to make that move, they easily would have joined Wade here i am 100% sure of that

We had all that before. Why didn't any big name players leave their team to come play with A.I.?

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 05:14 PM
This is 100% false. T-Mac has said it himself. He went to Orlando because he didn't like how his current coach was using him and it was a tough decision because he had Carter in Toronto, but that what ultimately helped him make the decision was the chance to play with Duncan and Hill (if he had it his way he'd of been the 3rd option).

TD didn't lure T-Mac anywhere. That's like saying Chris Bosh lured LeBron to come play for Miami.

KingstonHawke
01-22-2014, 05:19 PM
TD didn't lure T-Mac anywhere. That's like saying Chris Bosh lured LeBron to come play for Miami.

You said that T-Mac left a superstar to go to Orlando to be the man. You were wrong, T-Mac went to Orlando hoping to be the 3rd option on a championship level team.

mrblisterdundee
01-22-2014, 05:25 PM
The Thunder are great with Durant and Westbrook no need to trade either.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 05:25 PM
You said that T-Mac left a superstar to go to Orlando to be the man. You were wrong, T-Mac went to Orlando hoping to be the 3rd option on a championship level team.

I was wrong about that. He didn't go to be the man. He also didn't go because he was lured by other stars. Wasn't there a total overhaul in Orlando team thus freeing up necessary cap space? The hiring of Doc Rivers as head coach.

Either way you keep making my point. Why didn't Duncan chose to team up with Grant Hill and T-Mac?

Sandman
01-22-2014, 05:27 PM
lol Duncan already won titles in San Antonio, that doesn't disprove anything.

mightybosstone
01-22-2014, 05:32 PM
You just changed your stance completely lol. It's one thing if everyone was saying it's a bad deal for both. But what you said, and what most people said, is that one side would be getting all of the benefit and the other wouldn't. And two sentences in you changed your stance again. Now you're saying it's not a robbery for either team, that it's a bad deal for both teams. Which one is it???

And FYI, I wouldn't simply re-sign Hawes and Evans. I'd go after Monroe with Evans and use Hawes money to build around them. It's not Love or bust. Although having Love's good friend and a young franchise center would help to lure him. You'd still have rentals like Pau and Nowitski out there.

Actually I didn't change my stance at all. I changed my perspective. For a contending team, a bunch of talented young players and draft picks don't have as much value as an elite player in his prime. For a rebuilding team with no hope of contending on the horizon, those young players with potential and high draft picks have more value.

As far as your plan goes, I don't think Westbrook and Monroe alone would make Philly any better than a .500 basketball team. That would be good enough to make the playoffs in the East, but they'd be a long, long way from contending. So by trading for Westbrook, you're making a pretty huge gamble on the guy. If he's unhappy in a year or two and you can't build a contender around him, you'll be shipping him off and looking to rebuild again. At least in their current position, they've got a lot of young pieces with potential, a crap ton of cap space and high draft picks for the new few years.

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 05:32 PM
lol Duncan already a won title in San Antonio, that doesn't disprove anything.

Corrected you there.

Isn't the prospect of playing with T-Mac and GRANT Hill more intriguing that playing with old man D-Rob and DA? I guess D-Rob lured him back to SA right :laugh2:

Sandman
01-22-2014, 05:33 PM
Corrected you there.

Isn't the prospect of playing with T-Mac and GRANT Hill more intriguing that playing with old man D-Rob and DA? I guess D-Rob lured him back to SA right :laugh2:
Missing the forest for the trees...

Swashcuff
01-22-2014, 05:33 PM
Actually I didn't change my stance at all. I changed my perspective. For a contending team, a bunch of talented young players and draft picks don't have as much value as an elite player in his prime. For a rebuilding team with no hope of contending on the horizon, those young players with potential and high draft picks have more value.

As far as your plan goes, I don't think Westbrook and Monroe alone would make Philly any better than a .500 basketball team. That would be good enough to make the playoffs in the East, but they'd be a long, long way from contending. So by trading for Westbrook, you're making a pretty huge gamble on the guy. If he's unhappy in a year or two and you can't build a contender around him, you'll be shipping him off and looking to rebuild again. At least in their current position, they've got a lot of young pieces with potential, a crap ton of cap space and high draft picks for the new few years.

Dude we have Evans we're going to be a top 3 team in the league what are you talking about :laugh2:

mightybosstone
01-22-2014, 05:49 PM
Dude we have Evans we're going to be a top 3 team in the league what are you talking about :laugh2:
Haha.... Yeah, I didn't catch that until after I saw your post about it. I think I'd rather have Evan Turner than Tyreke Evans. At least his contract doesn't suck right now.

KingstonHawke
01-22-2014, 08:37 PM
The fact that you're calling Evan Turner Evans is all I need to read to know exactly where you stand on this argument. Haha.

It's called dyslexia douche-bag.

KingstonHawke
01-22-2014, 09:09 PM
Actually I didn't change my stance at all. I changed my perspective. For a contending team, a bunch of talented young players and draft picks don't have as much value as an elite player in his prime. For a rebuilding team with no hope of contending on the horizon, those young players with potential and high draft picks have more value.

As far as your plan goes, I don't think Westbrook and Monroe alone would make Philly any better than a .500 basketball team. That would be good enough to make the playoffs in the East, but they'd be a long, long way from contending. So by trading for Westbrook, you're making a pretty huge gamble on the guy. If he's unhappy in a year or two and you can't build a contender around him, you'll be shipping him off and looking to rebuild again. At least in their current position, they've got a lot of young pieces with potential, a crap ton of cap space and high draft picks for the new few years.

Your arguments are just very inconsistent.

1. You call Westbrook an elite PG. But in the next paragraph say that with the help of a 17-6 forward, and a 16-10 center would only be a .500 team in the east.

2. You're implying that Westbrook can get mad but MCW and Noel can't.

The only think you're saying that isn't flat out false (because it's speculation, which can't be proven false). Is that you think the additions of MCW, Noel, Bynum, Shump, and Smith can't make up for the loss in production created by trading away Westbrook, Jackson, and Collison. And that, I simply just disagree with.

It's crazy to me how quickly people have forgot how good Shump and Smith are. The Thunder look awesome right now without Westbrook in the lineup. If Bynum's not healthy you can play MCW at the 1 and Durant at the 4 and that lineup would kill. And if Bynum is healthy, you could start Shump for defense and shooting, and MCW-Smith-Thabo-Noel-Adams would easily be the best 2nd unit in the league.

LJEATON26
01-22-2014, 09:31 PM
NOTE: adjusted my steps, didn't realize that you can't amnesty until the end of the year... everything's basically the same though

Westbrook is one of my favorite players in the whole league. BUT... it would make a lot of sense for the Thunder to trade him and just commit to being a Durant led team.

Obviously, this only makes sense if you can get a package equal to the value that Westbrook offers. But I don't think that would be hard. an example of the moves I would make if I was Presti.

Step 1. Trade Westbrook to the 76ers for MCW, Nerlens Noel, and the pick the 76ers got from the Pelicans. (who do you think wins this trade?)

Step 2. Trade Jackson, Thabeet, Collison, and the Pelicans pick (remember it's top 5 protected) to the Knicks for Shumpart, JR Smith.

Step 3. Sign Andrew Bynum to a similarly structured deal to the one he got from the Cavs but just for a lot less money (a one year deal, partially guaranteed with a 2nd year team option)

Step 4. Amnesty Perkins in the offseason.

This is what the roster would look like.

PG: Carter-Williams ($2.2/4), Shumpart ($1.7/2), Fisher ($.9/1)
SG: Lamb ($2.1/3), Smith ($5.6/3)
SF: Durant ($17.8/3), Sefolosha ($3.9/1), Roberson ($.7/4)
PF: Ibaka($12.4/4), Noel ($3.2/4), Jones III ($1.1/3)
C: Bynum($5/2), Perkins ($8.7/2), Adams ($2.1/4)

That's a total of $67.4. So even if Bynum weren't to work out. Next year you'd still have two young talented centers, and up to $10mil to get another.

Young, versatile, cheap. I think this roster beats any team in the league. With the way Durant is playing, they wouldn't even need Bynum until the playoffs.

Anyway, tell me what you think. Give me other ideas. And just so you know, I intentionally over-traded, and overpaid players. And this is what it looks like in the trade machine.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=mls96sq

This would be an awful trade for okc. Mcw has a chance to be a really good pg in this league but why would you swap an all nba pg with tons of playoff experience for a rookie when you're a 1/2 game back from being the top team in the west? I wouldnt want smith or noel (steven adams has a chance to be better) at all. Shumpart I wouldn't mind having but not for everything that you had listed. Bynum is a head case and i don't know why any team would want to sign him. The fact that it shows the thunder as a -7 games on the trade machine should be enough to show how bad it is.

KingstonHawke
01-22-2014, 10:12 PM
This would be an awful trade for okc. Mcw has a chance to be a really good pg in this league but why would you swap an all nba pg with tons of playoff experience for a rookie when you're a 1/2 game back from being the top team in the west? I wouldnt want smith or noel (steven adams has a chance to be better) at all. Shumpart I wouldn't mind having but not for everything that you had listed. Bynum is a head case and i don't know why any team would want to sign him. The fact that it shows the thunder as a -7 games on the trade machine should be enough to show how bad it is.

I respect your opinion as far as not liking Noel and Smith, but I disagree with it. Smith isn't play his best ball this year, but I think losing Kidd had a lot to do with that. Playing on a loaded team that can sit him whenever he's not playing team ball is exactly what he needs. And I love Noel's versatility on defense. You can play him next to Adams and shut down offenses, or next to PJ and outrun teams.

Bynum is a head case. But he's an extremely talented one, that completely made the difference in two finals. Last time he cared he put up 19-12. All the Thunder would need him for is the playoffs. And they wouldn't need 19-12 from him.

Lastly... you clearly don't understand how they came up with that -7. But let me help you out a bit.

The projected wins argument, at least using their system, says that it's a great trade for the Thunder. Keep in mind that Bynum and Noel aren't accounted for. That Jackson is getting a bump due to Westbrook being out. And that Shump is being counted as the same position as Smith/Lamb/Thabo which affects his expected minutes. In reality, Bynum trumps Collison by a wide margin, Noel trumps Thabeet by a wide margin, Smith and Shump trump Jackson, and MCW is only 3 points behind Westbrook.

LJEATON26
01-22-2014, 10:42 PM
I respect your opinion as far as not liking Noel and Smith, but I disagree with it. Smith isn't play his best ball this year, but I think losing Kidd had a lot to do with that. Playing on a loaded team that can sit him whenever he's not playing team ball is exactly what he needs. And I love Noel's versatility on defense. You can play him next to Adams and shut down offenses, or next to PJ and outrun teams.

Bynum is a head case. But he's an extremely talented one, that completely made the difference in two finals. Last time he cared he put up 19-12. All the Thunder would need him for is the playoffs. And they wouldn't need 19-12 from him.

Lastly... you clearly don't understand how they came up with that -7. But let me help you out a bit.

The projected wins argument, at least using their system, says that it's a great trade for the Thunder. Keep in mind that Bynum and Noel aren't accounted for. That Jackson is getting a bump due to Westbrook being out. And that Shump is being counted as the same position as Smith/Lamb/Thabo which affects his expected minutes. In reality, Bynum trumps Collison by a wide margin, Noel trumps Thabeet by a wide margin, Smith and Shump trump Jackson, and MCW is only 3 points behind Westbrook.

Dude it is still a bad trade for the thunder. Westbrook is still twice the player that mcw is especially in the playoffs. Thabo and Shumpart are practically a wash since they are the same type of player. Thabeet doesn't even play and neither would noel who could be worse then anthony bennett at this point.
I would rather stick with Jeremy lamb and reggie jackson coming off the bench then even take a chance with smiths chucking and we could go and sign Bynum right now but I doubt they would because they don't want to mess with chemistry.

KingstonHawke
01-23-2014, 03:54 AM
Dude it is still a bad trade for the thunder. Westbrook is still twice the player that mcw is especially in the playoffs. Thabo and Shumpart are practically a wash since they are the same type of player. Thabeet doesn't even play and neither would noel who could be worse then anthony bennett at this point.
I would rather stick with Jeremy lamb and reggie jackson coming off the bench then even take a chance with smiths chucking and we could go and sign Bynum right now but I doubt they would because they don't want to mess with chemistry.

I'm cool with you having your own opinion... you just keep making factual errors and saying stuff that doesn't make any sense.

1. You can't compare Thabo to Shump, they'd both be on the team. You have to compare Shump to Jackson. And IMO Shump wins that match-up easily. Not only is he better overall, has a lot more potential, but his skillset matches up with Durant's perfectly. Outside shooter, finisher, elite defender.

2. Noel would certainty get minutes. Especially with Collison out the line-up.

3. Money matters. Yes they could sign Bynum outright (and don't be surprised if they do just that). But saving money and trading two post players away (getting one back) would make it a much more valuable signing.

Like I said. I'm cool with people disagreeing with me. But, you gotta make a little bit of sense. Saying you'd rather have Jackson and Lamb than Shump, Lamb, Smith is the same thing as saying you think Jackson is WAY better than Shump. Something I doubt even Jackson believes.

LJEATON26
01-23-2014, 12:46 PM
You have to look at the thunder roster though. Shump isn't a pg so for the rest of this season our pg would be mcw and Derek fisher. Then between the 2 and 3 you would have smith, thabo, lamb, Durant and pj3 all trying to get minutes. Noel hasn't played a game yet so how do you even know he's going to be able to play at the nba level. In what way is Shump better then reggie jackson? Have you even watched okc play?

xxplayerxx23
01-23-2014, 12:51 PM
Lmao shumpert better then Jackson are you out of your mind. I'm a Knicks fan and that's so far off the truth. Shump shows flashes but is inconstant. At best he's a 12-14 PPG scorer good defend he can't even break anybody down off the dribble

2-ONE-5
01-23-2014, 01:12 PM
Actually I didn't change my stance at all. I changed my perspective. For a contending team, a bunch of talented young players and draft picks don't have as much value as an elite player in his prime. For a rebuilding team with no hope of contending on the horizon, those young players with potential and high draft picks have more value.

As far as your plan goes, I don't think Westbrook and Monroe alone would make Philly any better than a .500 basketball team. That would be good enough to make the playoffs in the East, but they'd be a long, long way from contending. So by trading for Westbrook, you're making a pretty huge gamble on the guy. If he's unhappy in a year or two and you can't build a contender around him, you'll be shipping him off and looking to rebuild again. At least in their current position, they've got a lot of young pieces with potential, a crap ton of cap space and high draft picks for the new few years.

woah Monroe and RW easily put the Sixers as a top 3 in the east

mightybosstone
01-23-2014, 01:23 PM
woah Monroe and RW easily put the Sixers as a top 3 in the east

Yeah, but that's not saying much of anything. The 3 seed in the East is Atlanta, and they're only 22-19. They wouldn't even be in the playoffs in the West. Bottom line, Westbrook and Monroe would not make the Sixers a contending basketball team.

mightybosstone
01-23-2014, 01:49 PM
Your arguments are just very inconsistent.

1. You call Westbrook an elite PG. But in the next paragraph say that with the help of a 17-6 forward, and a 16-10 center would only be a .500 team in the east.
Yes, I do, because Monroe's numbers at face value don't tell the whole story, and he's got a long way to go before he's a legitimate No. 2 for a contending team. And I like Young, but he's a No. 3 or a No. 4 on a contender. Also, a team with Young and Monroe as its starting front court would have major defensive issues and struggle on the glass. That's a talented basketball team, but no one is taking them seriously as a contender.


2. You're implying that Westbrook can get mad but MCW and Noel can't.
They're rookies! You don't deserve a sense of entitlement as a rookie, and you almost never see a 20-year-old rookie complain about the direction a franchise is going. If you are a top 5-10 draft pick in the NBA, you're going to play for a crappy rebuilding team. That's inevitable, and you have to accept that.


The only think you're saying that isn't flat out false (because it's speculation, which can't be proven false). Is that you think the additions of MCW, Noel, Bynum, Shump, and Smith can't make up for the loss in production created by trading away Westbrook, Jackson, and Collison. And that, I simply just disagree with.
Well.... That's because you're wrong. You're taking away a top 10-12 player, a budding young player that oozes talent in Jackson and one of their most important rotational defenders in Collison and replacing them with two extremely raw rookies, a center who can't stay healthy and nobody wants and a defensive stopper OKC doesn't need (already have Sefolosha). How will that make them better right now? Would they be a better basketball team in 2-3 years? Perhaps, if MCW and Noel pan out. But those are HUGE assumptions. What we definitely know is that it will not make them a better basketball team RIGHT NOW, which is what OKC cares about.


It's crazy to me how quickly people have forgot how good Shump and Smith are. The Thunder look awesome right now without Westbrook in the lineup. If Bynum's not healthy you can play MCW at the 1 and Durant at the 4 and that lineup would kill. And if Bynum is healthy, you could start Shump for defense and shooting, and MCW-Smith-Thabo-Noel-Adams would easily be the best 2nd unit in the league.
Oh.... That's right. I forgot about Smith, because he's been SO reliable lately. Do you recall just how horrible he was in the postseason last year or just how bad he's been this season? We're talking a 46.4 TS%, a .015 WS/48 and a 10.6 PER. I wouldn't wish Smith on my worst enemy right now, much less would I want him on my contending basketball team. And Shumpert is just a different version of Sefolosha, so I fail to see what he would add to that team that they don't already have.

Also, your second unit assumes that Noel is healthy. He is not even going to play this season, so assuming he turns out to be a great addition, he probably won't be a significant part of the rotation until the middle of next season.

Bottom line, that team you've concocted is only better in the future, based on a flimsy assumption that MCW and Noel both pan out to be great players. If they're not, then OKC would be sacrificing for the present for a future that doesn't exist. They'd be making the team worse now to not be any better in the near future. Why in the hell would OKC want to do that when they've got the best record in the West today and are probably favorites to go to the Finals? It makes absolutely no sense.

SINCESTARBURY25
01-23-2014, 01:59 PM
Keep Reggie Jackson if he can keep up his performance and Trade Russell for a shooting guard.

KingstonHawke
01-26-2014, 05:53 AM
Still with the falsehoods I see lol.


Yes, I do, because Monroe's numbers at face value don't tell the whole story, and he's got a long way to go before he's a legitimate No. 2 for a contending team. And I like Young, but he's a No. 3 or a No. 4 on a contender. Also, a team with Young and Monroe as its starting front court would have major defensive issues and struggle on the glass. That's a talented basketball team, but no one is taking them seriously as a contender.

You just switched from saying .500 to contender... two completely different statements. And personally, I wouldn't play Young at the 4, I like him better at the 3.



They're rookies! You don't deserve a sense of entitlement as a rookie, and you almost never see a 20-year-old rookie complain about the direction a franchise is going. If you are a top 5-10 draft pick in the NBA, you're going to play for a crappy rebuilding team. That's inevitable, and you have to accept that.


What they deserve is irrelevant, we've seen a bunch of young guys express their dislike with where they are. Kobe (17 year old, 13th overall) didn't even wait until he got to the team. MCW and Noel would actually be more likely to leave than Westbrook after 4 years, because they'd most likely be having less success.



Well.... That's because you're wrong. You're taking away a top 10-12 player, a budding young player that oozes talent in Jackson and one of their most important rotational defenders in Collison and replacing them with two extremely raw rookies, a center who can't stay healthy and nobody wants and a defensive stopper OKC doesn't need (already have Sefolosha). How will that make them better right now? Would they be a better basketball team in 2-3 years? Perhaps, if MCW and Noel pan out. But those are HUGE assumptions. What we definitely know is that it will not make them a better basketball team RIGHT NOW, which is what OKC cares about.


Extremely raw rookie... you mean that 22 year old PG that's putting 22-7-6? That guy with the PER only 3 points lower than Westbrooks, I think he might be able to help the team a little bit. Bynum doesn't need to be healthy at any point other than maybe one or two playoff series. Comparing Shump to Thabo is dumb. Shump can play the point, Thabo can't. That's huge difference.



Oh.... That's right. I forgot about Smith, because he's been SO reliable lately. Do you recall just how horrible he was in the postseason last year or just how bad he's been this season? We're talking a 46.4 TS%, a .015 WS/48 and a 10.6 PER. I wouldn't wish Smith on my worst enemy right now, much less would I want him on my contending basketball team. And Shumpert is just a different version of Sefolosha, so I fail to see what he would add to that team that they don't already have.

You don't value a few players as much as I do, that's normal. But you pretending like you know for sure is dumb. Nobody wanted Beasly, all the while I said he would be a beast in the right situation. Now he is with the Heat. A lot of these kids that don't act right don't act right because of their situation. Smith has proven to be one of those people. Just a year ago when he had all those vets he won a 6 man award.



Also, your second unit assumes that Noel is healthy. He is not even going to play this season, so assuming he turns out to be a great addition, he probably won't be a significant part of the rotation until the middle of next season.


Noel is almost healthy now, and may play this year. He'd be guaranteed to play this year if they were doing better. I don't know what information you read that predicts him coming back midway through next season. And I'm not assuming he'd be a great addition, I'm a huge fan of Perry Jones. I'd probably play him at the 4 over Noel for the time being and hold him out as long as possible. I was just giving an example of what their unit could potentially look like. Noel wasn't the focus of that unit, it was the rookie of the year, and former 6th man of the year.



Bottom line, that team you've concocted is only better in the future, based on a flimsy assumption that MCW and Noel both pan out to be great players. If they're not, then OKC would be sacrificing for the present for a future that doesn't exist. They'd be making the team worse now to not be any better in the near future. Why in the hell would OKC want to do that when they've got the best record in the West today and are probably favorites to go to the Finals? It makes absolutely no sense.

Bottom line, MCW is already working out. And maybe you don't realize but the Thunder have that record without Westbrook. So, it would only be making the best team even better.

LJEATON26
01-26-2014, 08:08 PM
But is what you're not realizing is the thunder have a better record with westbrook. Still an awful trade for the top team in the west to give up a superstar all nba player, a good low post defender and a third year pg that could easily be 6th man of the year for a really good rookie, an unproven rookie, a chucker and a defensive specialist. Then again you think shumpert is a better player then reggie jackson.

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 08:23 PM
Let's just break it down really simple. This season with Westbrook the Thunder are 21-4 without Westbrook they are 14-6 and that is only after running off a 7 game win streak, prior to which they were 7-6 without him. Simply put threads like this pop up because people are prisoners of the moment. Had the Thunder win 3 of their last 7 this thread wouldn't exist currently. Durant is playing the best ball of his career and the team is really clicking on both ends of the floor most nights, hell even Perkins looks like its 2008 all over again at some times on the floor.

A team is 21-4 when one of their players is on the floor and people are saying he should be traded. Utterly comical.

cssdmark
01-26-2014, 08:39 PM
No but if they do send him to NYC

holditdown
01-26-2014, 09:22 PM
Let's just break it down really simple. This season with Westbrook the Thunder are 21-4 without Westbrook they are 14-6 and that is only after running off a 7 game win streak, prior to which they were 7-6 without him. Simply put threads like this pop up because people are prisoners of the moment. Had the Thunder win 3 of their last 7 this thread wouldn't exist currently. Durant is playing the best ball of his career and the team is really clicking on both ends of the floor most nights, hell even Perkins looks like its 2008 all over again at some times on the floor.

A team is 21-4 when one of their players is on the floor and people are saying he should be traded. Utterly comical.

Anytime you lose a player who hogs the ball the team has to adapt to that player not being there. Westbrook was 2nd in the league in USG% so he always had the ball.

Now they are learning to play without him. Notice the 7 game win streak.

Jamiecballer
01-26-2014, 09:24 PM
i think they'd have a better chance of winning a championship without Westbrook but it would be awfully hard to convince Durant to stay in the interim while they develop into a better team. it takes time and i'm not sure he'd want to stay.

the history of ball-dominant, high-scoring PG's winning championships is pretty damn near non-existent.

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 10:11 PM
Anytime you lose a player who hogs the ball the team has to adapt to that player not being there. Westbrook was 2nd in the league in USG% so he always had the ball.

Now they are learning to play without him. Notice the 7 game win streak.

Yeah makes complete sense. The 7 game winning streak has nothing to do with Kevin Durant playing the best ball of his career. Yup nothing to do with KD averaging 39, 7 and 7 in 6 of those 7 games while shooting 61% from the field, 53% from the 3 and making 10 FTs a game with an average game score of 32. Oh and not to mention the stellar D in which he has been playing on the perimeter.

If KD wasn't on this torrid tear the Thunder aren't winning 7 straight. Hell they would have struggled to win 5 of the 7. Oh and if you wanna attribute KD's streak/hot play to Westy not being around we have much larger sample sizes of his team's on/off data and last year's post season as more telling indicators that this trend certainly isn't the norm.

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 10:11 PM
i think they'd have a better chance of winning a championship without Westbrook but it would be awfully hard to convince Durant to stay in the interim while they develop into a better team. it takes time and i'm not sure he'd want to stay.

the history of ball-dominant, high-scoring PG's winning championships is pretty damn near non-existent.

Tell me how many scoring title SFs have won championships again. I bet you there are ball dominant PGs who have won titles than SFs who lead the league in scoring.

Jamiecballer
01-26-2014, 10:18 PM
Yeah makes complete sense. The 7 game winning streak has nothing to do with Kevin Durant playing the best ball of his career. Yup nothing to do with KD averaging 39, 7 and 7 in 6 of those 7 games while shooting 61% from the field, 53% from the 3 and making 10 FTs a game with an average game score of 32. Oh and not to mention the stellar D in which he has been playing on the perimeter.

If KD wasn't on this torrid tear the Thunder aren't winning 7 straight. Hell they would have struggled to win 5 of the 7. Oh and if you wanna attribute KD's streak/hot play to Westy not being around we have much larger sample sizes of his team's on/off data and last year's post season as more telling indicators that this trend certainly isn't the norm.

i'm sure you aren't meaning to but it really seems like you are just supporting his argument, and the argument most would make for getting rid of westbrook and that is: less westbrook == more and better durant.

Jamiecballer
01-26-2014, 10:20 PM
Tell me how many scoring title SFs have won championships again. I bet you there are ball dominant PGs who have won titles than SFs who lead the league in scoring.

we are going to get THAT picky? are you sure you don't want me to find out how many players have started at center for championship teams with the middle name Joanne while i am at it?

what does leading the league in scoring have to do with it?

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 10:30 PM
we are going to get THAT picky? are you sure you don't want me to find out how many players have started at center for championship teams with the middle name Joanne while i am at it?

what does leading the league in scoring have to do with it?

You said you the Thunder have a better chance at winning a title without Westbrook right? Thus meaning you rather go with Durant and the rest of the Thunder. Durant is a scorer first, a scoring champ and one of the greatest offensive players there is. Plain and simple how many championship teams have there been that's been lead by such a player? Wanna throw out LeBron. Cool, Rick Barry. Who else? Baylor failed, Dantley did, Melo ha, English, Nique etc etc etc

Edit: I initially left out Bird and Hondo because I felt they really weren't relied on to be the scorers that LeBron and Barry were required to be in order for their teams to be successful in the post season since he had so much offensive help but know what let's include all SFs.

If you want to say the list of championship teams that were lead by ball dominant PGs is short why not look at the list of high volume SFs as well. Its even shorter. It defeats whatever "point" you're trying to make.

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 10:37 PM
i'm sure you aren't meaning to but it really seems like you are just supporting his argument, and the argument most would make for getting rid of westbrook and that is: less westbrook == more and better durant.

And how does that help the Thunder?

A couple years ago Westbrook balled out when KD went to the bench while KD struggled big time when Westy sat.

The last time Westbrook and Durant completed post season together Durant averaged 11.1 points per 48 LESS when Westbrook Sat shooting just 34% from the field and 23% from the 3 the only aspect of his game that grew improved was his assists which improved by .6. Westy however played better when Durant sat.

That shows how idiotic the notion of removing Westbrook really is. When Durant comes up against top defenses on a nightly basis and Westy isn't on board you'd see more 10-25 performances (like we saw not very long ago in the post season) and less 13-20.

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 10:38 PM
The same dudes who would dare say the Thunder is better without Westbrook are the same idiots who said the Bulls are better without Rose.

Jamiecballer
01-26-2014, 10:54 PM
You said you the Thunder have a better chance at winning a title without Westbrook right? Thus meaning you rather go with Durant and the rest of the Thunder. Durant is a scorer first, a scoring champ and one of the greatest offensive players there is. Plain and simple how many championship teams have there been that's been lead by such a player? Wanna throw out LeBron. Cool, Rick Barry. Who else? Baylor failed, Dantley did, Melo ha, English, Nique etc etc etc

If you want to say the list of championship teams that were lead by ball dominant PGs is short why not look at the list of high volume SFs as well. Its even shorter. It defeats whatever "point" you're trying to make.

i'll make this easy for you because i don't like when people make huge assumptions or put words in my mouth.

i'm not saying the thunder are necessarily better as composed, minus westbrook. what i said was they should trade westbrook. so that's cleared up.

secondly, i should think a knowledgable basketball fan such as yourself knows that the argument against a ball dominant point guard is that they oftentimes kill ball movement, rather than actually facilitating an offense and getting teammates involved. i didn't spin a wheel or randomly pick a position and style of play to pick on.

Jamiecballer
01-26-2014, 10:59 PM
And how does that help the Thunder?

A couple years ago Westbrook balled out when KD went to the bench while KD struggled big time when Westy sat.

The last time Westbrook and Durant completed post season together Durant averaged 11.1 points per 48 LESS when Westbrook Sat shooting just 34% from the field and 23% from the 3 the only aspect of his game that grew improved was his assists which improved by .6. Westy however played better when Durant sat.

That shows how idiotic the notion of removing Westbrook really is. When Durant comes up against top defenses on a nightly basis and Westy isn't on board you'd see more 10-25 performances (like we saw not very long ago in the post season) and less 13-20.

again, missing the point or being purposely obtuse.

am i the only person who is seeing this? he's comparing the present day thunder (with Durant further along the development curve) to a team from 2 years ago. good thing the NBA is a completely static league where teams rosters don't change and players don't evolve.

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 11:07 PM
i'll make this easy for you because i don't like when people make huge assumptions or put words in my mouth.

i'm not saying the thunder are necessarily better as composed, minus westbrook. what i said was they should trade westbrook. so that's cleared up.


i think they'd have a better chance of winning a championship without Westbrook but it would be awfully hard to convince Durant to stay in the interim while they develop into a better team. it takes time and i'm not sure he'd want to stay.

Say what now?


secondly, i should think a knowledgable basketball fan such as yourself knows that the argument against a ball dominant point guard is that they oftentimes kill ball movement, rather than actually facilitating an offense and getting teammates involved. i didn't spin a wheel or randomly pick a position and style of play to pick on.

What about the argument for a ball dominant PG?

You're knocking ball dominant PGs because they "kill" offensives but history has proven to us that those same ball dominant PGs regularly run some of the better offenses in the league. Over the time span of 2010 to now the best offensive teams in the NBA are the Spurs and Thunder. This season the Blazers are number 1 (Damian Lillard), Heat #2, Clips #3, Spurs #4, Thunder #5.

Truth be told I see no issue with a ball dominant PG running an offense. In more cases than not a ball dominant PG helps the efficiency of his teammates (thus helping the team) simply because of the fact that he himself is an offensive weapon in more ways than one.

Honestly how many title teams have we seen with a PG that's top 5 in assists? Most championship teams featured PGs that could have scored just as well as they can pass or even better.

I think you fall for the myth that a PG has to be of the pass first mold in order for his team to be successful. That plain and simple is not true.

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 11:14 PM
again, missing the point or being purposely obtuse.

am i the only person who is seeing this? he's comparing the present day thunder (with Durant further along the development curve) to a team from 2 years ago. good thing the NBA is a completely static league where teams rosters don't change and players don't evolve.

Do you not see the issue with living in the moment? I wish I could have heard your thoughts when Durant couldn't take a Memphis Grizzlies team to 6 games crashing out of the post season.

You think Durant without Westbrook means a better Durant. Fine. Is that what matters? Or does a better Thunder team matter?

Durant could be at his very peak. When it comes playoff time that is not going to help them go anywhere (best example Jordan vs the Celtics in 86) unless he has Robin at his side. That's what matters.

holditdown
01-26-2014, 11:50 PM
PG is the most overrated position in sports. The last time a PG was the best player on a title team was Magic Johnson or maybe the 2004 Pistons. But notice how they had no star player. Tony Parker came close last year to almost break the drought.

A PG should never be the star of the team and try and and score 40 points a night. It doesn't work.

You are also leaving out something Swashcuff. Kevin Durant is still a developing player. His game is more complete than ever right now. His passing, shot selection, basketball IQ and defense have all improved. Maybe what he is now is what he will be in the future because he just got better plain and simple.

Swashcuff
01-26-2014, 11:56 PM
PG is the most overrated position in sports. The last time a PG was the best player on a title team was Magic Johnson or maybe the 2004 Pistons. But notice how they had no star player. Tony Parker came close last year to almost break the drought.

A PG should never be the star of the team and try and and score 40 points a night. It doesn't work.

You are also leaving out something Swashcuff. Kevin Durant is still a developing player. His game is more complete than ever right now. His passing, shot selection, basketball IQ and defense have all improved. Maybe what he is now is what he will be in the future because he just got better plain and simple.

There is this dude named Isiah Thomas who says hi.

Aside from LeBron who was the last SF to win a title as his team's best player? Bird. You got Chauncey, Isiah and Magic compared to Bird and Bron. I count 3 to 2. I count 7 titles to 5.

That "argument" holds no water.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 12:03 AM
Say what now?

lol how do teams normally get rid of talented players? it sure isn't by releasing them. the thread title is should they trade him, after all. didn't think it needed re-specifying.


What about the argument for a ball dominant PG?

You're knocking ball dominant PGs because they "kill" offensives but history has proven to us that those same ball dominant PGs regularly run some of the better offenses in the league. Over the time span of 2010 to now the best offensive teams in the NBA are the Spurs and Thunder. This season the Blazers are number 1 (Damian Lillard), Heat #2, Clips #3, Spurs #4, Thunder #5.

Truth be told I see no issue with a ball dominant PG running an offense. In more cases than not a ball dominant PG helps the efficiency of his teammates (thus helping the team) simply because of the fact that he himself is an offensive weapon in more ways than one.
i didn't say they kill offenses. i said it generally results in less ball movement, which it most certainly does. making them much easier to shut down when intensity and preparation increase in the playoffs.

how many title teams have we seen with a PG that's top 5 in assists? Most championship teams featured PGs that could have scored just as well as they can pass or even better.

I think you fall for the myth that a PG has to be of the pass first mold in order for his team to be successful. That plain and simple is not true.

i didn't say anything regarding high assist point guards so i won't even bother responding to that.

holditdown
01-27-2014, 12:04 AM
There is this dude named Isiah Thomas who says hi.

Aside from LeBron who was the last SF to win a title as his team's best player? Bird. You got Chauncey, Isiah and Magic compared to Bird and Bron. I count 3 to 2. I count 7 titles to 5.

That "argument" holds no water.

Isiah Thomas has a career 18 PER. So there goes that.

SF is the same thing as a SG basically. They are wings. Bird, Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, etc. were all wings.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 12:06 AM
PG is the most overrated position in sports. The last time a PG was the best player on a title team was Magic Johnson or maybe the 2004 Pistons. But notice how they had no star player. Tony Parker came close last year to almost break the drought.

A PG should never be the star of the team and try and and score 40 points a night. It doesn't work.

You are also leaving out something Swashcuff. Kevin Durant is still a developing player. His game is more complete than ever right now. His passing, shot selection, basketball IQ and defense have all improved. Maybe what he is now is what he will be in the future because he just got better plain and simple.

+1.

he doesn't see it that way though, but it's worth pointing out that he also thinks Iverson was a great team player and a winner.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 12:09 AM
Isiah Thomas has a career 18 PER. So there goes that.

SF is the same thing as a SG basically. They are wings. Bird, Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, etc. were all wings.

1. Please don't attempt to use stats against me you CLEARLY don't understand how to use it.
2. SF and SG are NOT basically the same. SHOOTING guards and small FORWARDS have different roles entirely in a team's offense and defense. If you played high school ball or even your neighbourhood pickup team you'd know this.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 12:10 AM
+1.

he doesn't see it that way though, but it's worth pointing out that he also thinks Iverson was a great team player and a winner.

See what what way? That's he's wrong? Smh.

holditdown
01-27-2014, 12:12 AM
1. Please don't attempt to use stats against me you CLEARLY don't understand how to use it.
2. SF and SG are NOT basically the same. SHOOTING guards and small FORWARDS have different roles entirely in a team's offense and defense. If you played high school ball or even your neighbourhood pickup team you'd know this.

I can't continue this discussion. You just value ball hogging inefficient guards and especially PG's too much and you won't reason.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 12:12 AM
lol how do teams normally get rid of talented players? it sure isn't by releasing them. the thread title is should they trade him, after all. didn't think it needed re-specifying.


i didn't say they kill offenses. i said it generally results in less ball movement, which it most certainly does. making them much easier to shut down when intensity and preparation increase in the playoffs.


i didn't say anything regarding high assist point guards so i won't even bother responding to that.

You should have stopped right there. TBH you have offered nothing but inconsistencies in your "points" and really haven't proven anything, well except for the fact that you can't back up any claim that you've made with at least a shred of evidence.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 12:13 AM
I can't continue this discussion. You just value ball hogging inefficient guards and especially PG's too much and you won't reason.

No actually I value common sense. Some people apparently don't.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 12:16 AM
There is this dude named Isiah Thomas who says hi.

Aside from LeBron who was the last SF to win a title as his team's best player? Bird. You got Chauncey, Isiah and Magic compared to Bird and Bron. I count 3 to 2. I count 7 titles to 5.

That "argument" holds no water.

besides, none of the guys you just mentioned dominate the ball the way Westbrook does, and wasn't that the original point?

so by my count, you've still go 0.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 12:19 AM
You should have stopped right there. TBH you have offered nothing but inconsistencies in your "points" and really haven't proven anything, well except for the fact that you can't back up any claim that you've made with at least a shred of evidence.

well i'm sure you can enlighten me as to what those inconsistencies are as i'm pretty sure anyone who can read can see you are full of ****.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 12:20 AM
swashcuff you are so easy to defeat in debate because as soon as you don't have an answer for something you just launch into insult mode. it's the best :rolleyes:

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 12:20 AM
besides, none of the guys you just mentioned dominate the ball the way Westbrook does, and wasn't that the original point?

so by my count, you've still go 0.

Everyone would have 0 I really don't see you counting much higher than that.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 12:23 AM
swashcuff you are so easy to defeat in debate because as soon as you don't have an answer for something you just launch into insult mode. it's the best :rolleyes:

Congratulations you just won and online debate with a dude you're never going to meet about players who don't care if you existed. Here is your prize

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 09:50 AM
as a point of reference, here are the title winners of the last 30 years along with the usage rates of their starting point guards (along with their PER in parenthesis)

m. chalmers: 16.1 (13.3)
m. chalmers: 17.4 (13.0)
j. kidd: 14.3 (14.4)
d. fisher: 14.0 (9.3)
d. fisher: 14.7 (12.1)
r. rondo: 18.9 (15.6)
t. parker: 27.4 (21.4) *2.5 TO's/G, 1.30 PPS
j. williams: 18.5 (15.0)
t. parker: 25.1 (18.0) *2.7 TO's/G, 1.19 PPS
c. billups: 23.5 (18.6)
t. parker: 22.9 (16.5)
d. fisher: 17.6 (14.0)
d. fisher: 15.4 (14.0)
r. harper: 15.6 (12.0)
a. johnson: 17.0 (14.0)
r. harper: 16.7 (14.7)
r. harper: 12.6 (13.6)
r. harper: 14.9 (14.4)
k. smith: 17.3 (16.2)
k. smith: 18.1 (14.2)
b. armstrong 16.8 (14.7)
j. paxson 12.1 (10.9)
j. paxson 14.4 (14.0)
i. thomas 26.0 (17.3) *pistons won despite his dreadful chucking. 1.12 PPS.
i. thomas 24.6 (17.1) *pistons won despite his dreadful chucking. 1.18 PPS.
m. johnson 23.4 (23.1)
m. johnson 26.3 (27.0)
d. johnson 20.5 (14.7)
m. johnson 20.5 (23.2)
d. johnson 18.4 (12.8)

so what's the common thread here? they all had superstars, except perhaps the pistons in '04. like all-time great superstars. well the Thunder have one of those too.

and yet there isn't a single champion in 30 years that had a point guard that was even in the same stratosphere of Westbrooks usage. in fact, a lot of those point guards would be seen as backups on most teams. is that pure coincidence? i don't think it is. these teams were smart. they removed any obstacles to the superstar player getting the touches he needed by targeting point guards who understood the best use of a point guard is to initiate the offense quickly and stick open shots if the ball comes back to them.

i'm not saying it can't be done. maybe they can win a title with Westbrook. but look again at that list. is there a single guy on that list that was considered selfish? Isiah Thomas is really your only comparable.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 10:16 AM
Well done Jamie now do the same thing for SFs.

Rick Fox, Bruce Bowen, Robert Horry, Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Trevor Ariza, Mark Aguire, Sean Elliot, Tayshaun etc All role players on their championship teams. As a matter of fact Bird, LeBron, Pippen, Worthy, Rodman and Pierce are the only championship SFs during that time span who were all stars on their respective teams. Conversely we have Parker, Chauncey, Isiah, Magic and DJ being all stars on their title teams.

Fact is the basketball is generally a big man game but there is no rule stating that you can't win with a high usage PG. Simply replace Westbrook with a player who is going to share the ball more is not a guarantee to make the Thunder a better team (something you have yet to speak about) but apparently that's not what matters to you guys what matters is that Durant gets a chance to get his.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 10:25 AM
Well done Jamie now do the same thing for SFs.

Rick Fox, Bruce Bowen, Robert Horry, Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Trevor Ariza, Mark Aguire, Sean Elliot, Tayshaun etc All role players on their championship teams. As a matter of fact Bird, LeBron, Pippen, Worthy, Rodman and Pierce are the only championship SFs during that time span who were all stars on their respective teams. Conversely we have Parker, Chauncey, Isiah, Magic and DJ being all stars on their title teams.

Fact is the basketball is generally a big man game but there is no rule stating that you can't win with a high usage PG. Simply replace Westbrook with a player who is going to share the ball more is not a guarantee to make the Thunder a better team (something you have yet to speak about) but apparently that's not what matters to you guys what matters is that Durant gets a chance to get his.

i don't believe i've ever stated that it's important to have a high caliber SF. only that you pretty much have to have a superstar, and that there is no history of a point guard like Westbrook winning a title. EVER.

i have not said it's impossible. but for those of us who like to learn from what has worked in the past, it's highly unlikely that he is going to improve Durant's chances.

poleandreel
01-27-2014, 10:33 AM
Well done Jamie now do the same thing for SFs.

Rick Fox, Bruce Bowen, Robert Horry, Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Trevor Ariza, Mark Aguire, Sean Elliot, Tayshaun etc All role players on their championship teams. As a matter of fact Bird, LeBron, Pippen, Worthy, Rodman and Pierce are the only championship SFs during that time span who were all stars on their respective teams. Conversely we have Parker, Chauncey, Isiah, Magic and DJ being all stars on their title teams.

Fact is the basketball is generally a big man game but there is no rule stating that you can't win with a high usage PG. Simply replace Westbrook with a player who is going to share the ball more is not a guarantee to make the Thunder a better team (something you have yet to speak about) but apparently that's not what matters to you guys what matters is that Durant gets a chance to get his.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 10:38 AM
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

not sure why you'd clap at this obvious strawman argument. this discussion is solely about the point guard and it's never been done. could happen, but it hasn't. if you want to see Durant win a title you are better off redistributing that talent to positions that matter more.

FlashBolt
01-27-2014, 10:46 AM
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

not sure why you'd clap at his strawman argument. this discussion is solely about the point guard and it's never been done. could happen, but it hasn't. if you want to see Durant win a title you are better off redistributing that talent to positions that matter more.

Yup, very true. I feel the point guard role can be played by more positions than ever. OKC would do serious damage with a center who can actually defend on the paint. While Westbrook is an elite player, his role can easily be replaced sparingly.

FlashBolt
01-27-2014, 10:58 AM
lol how do teams normally get rid of talented players? it sure isn't by releasing them. the thread title is should they trade him, after all. didn't think it needed re-specifying.


i didn't say they kill offenses. i said it generally results in less ball movement, which it most certainly does. making them much easier to shut down when intensity and preparation increase in the playoffs.


i didn't say anything regarding high assist point guards so i won't even bother responding to that.

You should have stopped right there. TBH you have offered nothing but inconsistencies in your "points" and really haven't proven anything, well except for the fact that you can't back up any claim that you've made with at least a shred of evidence.

Dude, we get it. You love point guards who run around jacking ***** up like they are tossing a rock in a lake. You result to insulting others because you can't find a single person to agree with you and deep down - it hurts you. How about you accept the fact that Westbrook is a great player but OKC can get more value in other positions. You neglect the fact that last year Durant went up against one of the best defensive teams and no one on the team could score since Westbrook was out. However, this year is different because Lamb, Jackson, and heck even Ibaka has developed offensively. Not to mention that if you trade Westbrook, they wouldn't have to worry about Westbrook playing or not. Maybe this discussion has made you reminisce Allen Iverson but you have to understand that PG's aren't as needed as back then. The skill level of NBA has adapted to the point where out of position players can play various positions and dominate. While you may not accept the fact, just look at OKC. They lack inside depth because Perkins is a total scrub. Would you take a Westbrook for Anthony Davis? I sure as hell would.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 10:59 AM
i don't believe i've ever stated that it's important to have a high caliber SF. only that you pretty much have to have a superstar, and that there is no history of a point guard like Westbrook winning a title. EVER.

i have not said it's impossible. but for those of us who like to learn from what has worked in the past, it's highly unlikely that he is going to improve Durant's chances.

The past? If you wanna speak of the past why not mention Gus Williams or Walt Frazier?

Anywho, weren't you the guy who said the amount of title teams that were led by PGs was basically non existent? Well that's WRONG. The amount of title teams that were lead by PGs are about the same as title teams lead by SFs (actually its more in favour of the PGs).

Not once during this discussion have you said who the Thunder should replace Westbrook with. All you said that its not good to have a ball dominant PG because it equates to less of Durant and less of Durant is not a good thing. Completely ignoring the fact that the Thunder are a better team when Westbrook is on the floor. Completely contradicting your baseless argument.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 11:04 AM
Dude, we get it. You love point guards who run around jacking ***** up like they are tossing a rock in a lake. You result to insulting others because you can't find a single person to agree with you and deep down - it hurts you. How about you accept the fact that Westbrook is a great player but OKC can get more value in other positions. You neglect the fact that last year Durant went up against one of the best defensive teams and no one on the team could score since Westbrook was out. However, this year is different because Lamb, Jackson, and heck even Ibaka has developed offensively. Not to mention that if you trade Westbrook, they wouldn't have to worry about Westbrook playing or not. Maybe this discussion has made you reminisce Allen Iverson but you have to understand that PG's aren't as needed as back then. The skill level of NBA has adapted to the point where out of position players can play various positions and dominate. While you may not accept the fact, just look at OKC. They lack inside depth because Perkins is a total scrub. Would you take a Westbrook for Anthony Davis? I sure as hell would.

You jump into a discussion not knowing what the hell its about and trying to attack me. Child please.

At ANY point during this discussion have you seen anyone say anything about replacing Westbrook with a centre? The entire point those two dudes are making is that they'd be better off with a different type of PG. Given the fact that the Thunder has had the most efficient offense in the NBA in the last 3+ years is it goes against that trend of thought.

FlashBolt
01-27-2014, 11:10 AM
Dude, we get it. You love point guards who run around jacking ***** up like they are tossing a rock in a lake. You result to insulting others because you can't find a single person to agree with you and deep down - it hurts you. How about you accept the fact that Westbrook is a great player but OKC can get more value in other positions. You neglect the fact that last year Durant went up against one of the best defensive teams and no one on the team could score since Westbrook was out. However, this year is different because Lamb, Jackson, and heck even Ibaka has developed offensively. Not to mention that if you trade Westbrook, they wouldn't have to worry about Westbrook playing or not. Maybe this discussion has made you reminisce Allen Iverson but you have to understand that PG's aren't as needed as back then. The skill level of NBA has adapted to the point where out of position players can play various positions and dominate. While you may not accept the fact, just look at OKC. They lack inside depth because Perkins is a total scrub. Would you take a Westbrook for Anthony Davis? I sure as hell would.

You jump into a discussion not knowing what the hell its about and trying to attack me. Child please.

At ANY point during this discussion have you seen anyone say anything about replacing Westbrook with a centre? The entire point those two dudes are making is that they'd be better off with a different type of PG. Given the fact that the Thunder has had the most efficient offense in the NBA in the last 3+ years is it goes against that trend of thought.

Look at you. More name calling because you can't fashionably hold a debate? Much like when i made that Iverson thread and no one agreed with you except a bunch of "he had heart" junk. Actually, it was implied that Westbrook's value could be better used in other positions. The main problem with OKC is their center position since Perkins has been rather horrific. You have Westbrook and Reggie Jackson. While Reggie is not as good, he can certainly play the role of a PG. And don't tell me if I have watched any OKC games. Miami and OKC are the only reason I paid for league pass. That value you receive from Westbrook is obviously not going towards an elite PG unless you are getting Curry or CP3. You don't know what you're talking about. Getting mad and calling someone a child? Good one. You lost. No one agrees with you. Take a nap and wake up to another thread more of your topic.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 11:15 AM
Look at you. More name calling because you can't fashionably hold a debate? Much like when i made that Iverson thread and no one agreed with you except a bunch of "he had heart" junk. Actually, it was implied that Westbrook's value could be better used in other positions. The main problem with OKC is their center position since Perkins has been rather horrific. You have Westbrook and Reggie Jackson. While Reggie is not as good, he can certainly play the role of a PG. And don't tell me if I have watched any OKC games. Miami and OKC are the only reason I paid for league pass. That value you receive from Westbrook is obviously not going towards an elite PG unless you are getting Curry or CP3. You don't know what you're talking about. Getting mad and calling someone a child? Good one. You lost. No one agrees with you. Take a nap and wake up to another thread more of your topic.

I don't get what's up with you dudes with this I won you lose comments. Who gives a ****. Wanna hear you won you won an online debate because two dudes didn't agree with me. Woah I'm such a loser. How can I go on with my life.

FlashBolt
01-27-2014, 11:21 AM
Look at you. More name calling because you can't fashionably hold a debate? Much like when i made that Iverson thread and no one agreed with you except a bunch of "he had heart" junk. Actually, it was implied that Westbrook's value could be better used in other positions. The main problem with OKC is their center position since Perkins has been rather horrific. You have Westbrook and Reggie Jackson. While Reggie is not as good, he can certainly play the role of a PG. And don't tell me if I have watched any OKC games. Miami and OKC are the only reason I paid for league pass. That value you receive from Westbrook is obviously not going towards an elite PG unless you are getting Curry or CP3. You don't know what you're talking about. Getting mad and calling someone a child? Good one. You lost. No one agrees with you. Take a nap and wake up to another thread more of your topic.

I don't get what's up with you dudes with this I won you lose comments. Who gives a ****. Wanna hear you won you won an online debate because two dudes didn't agree with me. Woah I'm such a loser. How can I go on with my life.

Isn't that the point of a debate? To establish who the winner and loser is via compelling arguments? Lol. Yes, go on insulting. Those tears are tasty. So you accept the fact that you lost, you run away from the original discussion and bring up your social status. Cool. I know you're hurt. One would not resort to insulting others unless they are emotionally offended. You're hurt. Take a nap and stop taking it so serious.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 11:27 AM
PSD is always good for a laugh :laugh:

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 11:27 AM
The past? If you wanna speak of the past why not mention Gus Williams or Walt Frazier?
that's fair. i thought going back 30 years was good enough. Gus Williams did it. are you happy? we found a PG with a similarly ball-dominant game who won a title and it only took 35 years.

anywho, weren't you the guy who said the amount of title teams that were led by PGs was basically non existent? Well that's WRONG. The amount of title teams that were lead by PGs are about the same as title teams lead by SFs (actually its more in favour of the PGs).
no, i did not say that. so i hope you didn't waste too much time mounting your imaginary defense of it.


Not once during this discussion have you said who the Thunder should replace Westbrook with. All you said that its not good to have a ball dominant PG because it equates to less of Durant and less of Durant is not a good thing. Completely ignoring the fact that the Thunder are a better team when Westbrook is on the floor. Completely contradicting your baseless argument.
that's not exactly true either. i mentioned quite early that it stifles ball movement and that's a huge part of it. when you have a player of Durants caliber, getting the ball in his hands as often as possible is a good thing. but it's perhaps more important just to get it out of the PG's hands so that actual ball movement can occur.

and why would i have to tell you who to replace him with? i'm not interested in working up a myriad of trade scenarios. it's not relevant to the discussion of whether or not having a PG like Westbrook is good for the Thunder going forward.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 11:40 AM
i think they'd have a better chance of winning a championship without Westbrook but it would be awfully hard to convince Durant to stay in the interim while they develop into a better team. it takes time and i'm not sure he'd want to stay.

the history of ball-dominant, high-scoring PG's winning championships is pretty damn near non-existent.

Say what?

D-Leethal
01-27-2014, 11:46 AM
Tony Parker must be non-existent too.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, eat a reeses, and build a championship basketball team. I think if history has proven anything, its that you can win a chip in all forms of shapes and sizes. One star and role players, 2 stars and role players, "big 3", top D with solid O, top O with solid D, star PG, star C, Star at any position imaginable etc.

The dumbest conversations on here are the ones predicated on "THIS is the only way you can win a chip". There is no line in the sand that says you can't win this way or that way - OKC beat the Spurs and made the Finals - if Miami wasn't such a tough matchup they would have a chip. The best team will win no matter how many stars they have, what position those stars played, what that teams bread and butter is - the best team wins and there are a million ways you can build "the best team".

poleandreel
01-27-2014, 11:50 AM
As an OKC fan, there are not many players you can replace Westbrook with and still have a championship team. Ibaka has not developed an offensive game, contrary to what my fellow OKC fan above has said. He can make jumpers and dunk. You cannot give him the ball and expect him to do anything with it. ALSO, take a look at Ibaka's numbers with Westy on the floor as opposed to without. He is MUCH better with him on the floor.

KD is great, but look at LBJ in cleveland. Sixty win seasons were the regular and he averaged 35/8/7 on 50% shooting in the playoffs and still lost. You need a second scorer. Westbrook is that scorer.

You don't trade a player who put up 43 points in a finals game when Durant was being a *****. You don't trade a player who is the heart of the team.

You don't trade Wade, you don't trade Pippen, you don't trade Gasol, you don't trade Parker. You don't trade a ****ing superstar in his prime from a team that made the finals with him, lost in the first playoff series without him, and was 23/5 the next season with him.

Stupid ****ing thread is stupid.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 11:51 AM
Say what?

are you ****ing ********? or am i just not being clear. ball-dominant == super high usage. i made you a chart for christs sake. Westbrook is 30+ for usage, that is crazy stupid high for a PG. none of the other guys were anything close, with the exception of one year where Parker was at 27 and he was exceptionally efficient, something Westbrook by the way isn't.

so again, for the sake of clarity:

"the history of ball-dominant, high-scoring PG's winning championships is pretty damn near non-existent"

DOES NOT EQUAL

"the number of title teams led by a PG is non-existent".

Do you see the importance of word choices now? One statement is rather specific, the other is very vague and fuzzy.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 11:52 AM
Tony Parker must be non-existent too.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, eat a reeses, and build a championship basketball team. I think if history has proven anything, its that you can win a chip in all forms of shapes and sizes. One star and role players, 2 stars and role players, "big 3", top D with solid O, top O with solid D, star PG, star C, Star at any position imaginable etc.

The dumbest conversations on here are the ones predicated on "THIS is the only way you can win a chip". There is no line in the sand that says you can't win this way or that way - OKC beat the Spurs and made the Finals - if Miami wasn't such a tough matchup they would have a chip. The best team will win no matter how many stars they have, what position those stars played, what that teams bread and butter is - the best team wins and there are a million ways you can build "the best team".

you are right about that.

Swashcuff
01-27-2014, 11:56 AM
are you ****ing ********? or am i just not being clear. ball-dominant == super high usage. i made you a chart for christs sake. Westbrook is 30+ for usage, that is crazy stupid high for a PG. none of the other guys were anything close, with the exception of one year where Parker was at 27 and he was exceptionally efficient, something Westbrook by the way isn't.

so again, for the sake of clarity:

"the history of ball-dominant, high-scoring PG's winning championships is pretty damn near non-existent"

DOES NOT EQUAL

"the number of title teams led by a PG is non-existent".

Do you see the importance of word choices now? One statement is rather specific, the other is very vague and fuzzy.

Tell me something.

What is your understanding of USG%? Ball dominance and USG% are not the same thing. You clearly don't understand that.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 12:29 PM
Tell me something.

What is your understanding of USG%? Ball dominance and USG% are not the same thing. You clearly don't understand that.
do you have a better stat to identify selfish play? if you do i'm seriously interested to know what that would be.

LJEATON26
01-27-2014, 03:26 PM
do you have a better stat to identify selfish play? if you do i'm seriously interested to know what that would be.

So by your logic kevin durant is a selfish ball hog because right now he has a 31.9 usage rating.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 03:37 PM
So by your logic kevin durant is a selfish ball hog because right now he has a 31.9 usage rating.

strictly speaking, absolutely.

people don't seem to understand. there is a point where a player is so good, so efficient, that being selfish is in the best interests of the team. Durant has reached that level. Jordan was at that level. James is at that level. Wade even.

very few players have gotten to that level but it's spawned an entire generation of guys who don't get that key distinction. Melo/Westbrook/Iverson/Ellis and Gay being the ones that stand out.

holditdown
01-27-2014, 06:22 PM
strictly speaking, absolutely.

people don't seem to understand. there is a point where a player is so good, so efficient, that being selfish is in the best interests of the team. Durant has reached that level. Jordan was at that level. James is at that level. Wade even.

very few players have gotten to that level but it's spawned an entire generation of guys who don't get that key distinction. Melo/Westbrook/Iverson/Ellis and Gay being the ones that stand out.

Good point. Basketball is and always will be about winning the game. Not about who can put up the most points. Yet like you say there are players so efficient that ball hogging actually is good for the team.

LJEATON26
01-27-2014, 06:42 PM
Good point. Basketball is and always will be about winning the game. Not about who can put up the most points. Yet like you say there are players so efficient that ball hogging actually is good for the team.

Completely agree, basketball like all sports is about winning. That's why I don't understand the dislike for Westbrook. He helps the team win while being productive and gets hated on for it. I love the fact that we have reggie jackson to fill in for him while he's hurt but jackson can't fill Westbrook shoes by himself. Westbrook is better at every aspect of the game and if you watch the games it shows.

holditdown
01-27-2014, 06:47 PM
Completely agree, basketball like all sports is about winning. That's why I don't understand the dislike for Westbrook. He helps the team win while being productive and gets hated on for it. I love the fact that we have reggie jackson to fill in for him while he's hurt but jackson can't fill Westbrook shoes by himself. Westbrook is better at every aspect of the game and if you watch the games it shows.

Nobody says Westbrook has no talent. He just misuses it grossly.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 08:05 PM
Nobody says Westbrook has no talent. He just misuses it grossly.

it's unfortunate that every player doesn't have that same thirst for insight into how they can be more effective like Durant and other guys like Battier and James do.

for a lot of these guys you can tell that every second is spent trying to master scoring from another spot on the floor instead of figuring out where they are most effective and trying to figure out how to put themselves in those spots more often.

GoBullsGo
01-27-2014, 08:34 PM
Westbrook is so young and already has developed into an all-star. I'd think twice if LAC offered Chris Paul, Rondo? depending on how he returns. How about a package of guys like Jeff Teague and Al Horford for Westbrook and filler.....or Ty Lawson and one of their young talented bigs?

holditdown
01-27-2014, 11:29 PM
If he isn't traded he needs to be taken aside and sat down. Discuss his game because of how good Durant is. He can't screw this up. Give the man the damn ball.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2014, 11:34 PM
If he isn't traded he needs to be taken aside and sat down. Discuss his game because of how good Durant is. He can't screw this up. Give the man the damn ball.

hey you know who would be a perfect PG for Durant. Lowry. Maybe the Raptors can deal Lowry+ to Oklahoma and then ship Westbrook to a third party for a butt-load. that would take the sting out of losing Lowry a little. Oklahoma gets a dynamite PG that doesn't dominate the ball near as much.

GoBullsGo
01-28-2014, 01:14 AM
If I were to trade Westbrook, this is the deal that makes most sense for both teams:

OKC - L. Stephenson, G. Hill, D. Granger, I. Mahinmi
IND - R. Westbrook, T. Sefelosha, N. Collison, H. Thabeet, A. Roberson, P.Jones

OKC gets a pretty good defensive point guard who doesn't put up a lot of shots, and a younger much better version of Sefelosha. They also get another big to complement Steven Adams as Perkins begins to age. Granger could help in the playoff run and then they can let him walk to resign Stephenson who would be great with Durant and Ibaka.

Westbrook serves as much needed offensive punch for Indy to give another scoring element alongside Paul George. They don't loose much defense with Thabo around. They add a lot of youth to their bench with Thabeet, Jones, Roberson, and another veteran big in Collison.

LJEATON26
01-28-2014, 08:42 AM
If I were to trade Westbrook, this is the deal that makes most sense for both teams:

OKC - L. Stephenson, G. Hill, D. Granger, I. Mahinmi
IND - R. Westbrook, T. Sefelosha, N. Collison, H. Thabeet, A. Roberson, P.Jones

OKC gets a pretty good defensive point guard who doesn't put up a lot of shots, and a younger much better version of Sefelosha. They also get another big to complement Steven Adams as Perkins begins to age. Granger could help in the playoff run and then they can let him walk to resign Stephenson who would be great with Durant and Ibaka.

Westbrook serves as much needed offensive punch for Indy to give another scoring element alongside Paul George. They don't loose much defense with Thabo around. They add a lot of youth to their bench with Thabeet, Jones, Roberson, and another veteran big in Collison.

I'd rather keep Westbrook and the young talent. Roberson imo is going to be one of the best perimeter defenders in the league. If okc was going to unload Westbrook I would much rather do it for a package of maybe nelson/afflalo or rondo/green

Jamiecballer
01-28-2014, 09:11 AM
If I were to trade Westbrook, this is the deal that makes most sense for both teams:

OKC - L. Stephenson, G. Hill, D. Granger, I. Mahinmi
IND - R. Westbrook, T. Sefelosha, N. Collison, H. Thabeet, A. Roberson, P.Jones

OKC gets a pretty good defensive point guard who doesn't put up a lot of shots, and a younger much better version of Sefelosha. They also get another big to complement Steven Adams as Perkins begins to age. Granger could help in the playoff run and then they can let him walk to resign Stephenson who would be great with Durant and Ibaka.

Westbrook serves as much needed offensive punch for Indy to give another scoring element alongside Paul George. They don't loose much defense with Thabo around. They add a lot of youth to their bench with Thabeet, Jones, Roberson, and another veteran big in Collison.

George Hill is another point guard I think would be a good match for the Thunder and Durant.

bholly
01-28-2014, 10:34 AM
OKC are giving up 4 or 5 guys too many in that deal. It'd likely get done for Westbrook and whatever the thunder want to get rid of if they wanted.

EL_MACHETE
01-28-2014, 11:34 AM
Westbrook isn't leaving! Especially not for those trash offers

Get off the man's dick.. ****ing Mooks

GoBullsGo
01-28-2014, 01:29 PM
I have doubts that Orlando and Boston would want Westbrook seeing that he would probably be unhappy in a rebuilding situation, unlike the Indy deal. I honestly don't know much about Jones and Roberson but lets say that Roberson is not a part of that deal. I really like the deal for OKC.

C - Perkins / Adams
F - Ibaka / Mahinmi
F - Durant / Roberson
G - Stephenson / Lamb
G - Hill / Jackson / Fisher

Durant becomes hands-down the number one option on the team. He's surrounded by team-oriented All-Star caliber players in Ibaka and Stephenson who are very strong defenders and he has additional scoring bunch from his potent backcourt in Hill, Jackson, and Lamb. The frontline adds another nice young big in Manhinmi to gradually replace the aging Perkins. OKC can then sign minimum level guys like Richard Jefferson, Chris Kaman or Keith Bogans to fill the roster.

JOSKOMANG4
01-28-2014, 04:24 PM
Only way I would deal westbrook is if i'm going to acquire either an established PG(Rondo) or possibly a up and coming PG(Bledsoe).

- Okafur, Bledsoe, & future 1st rd pick to Thunder for Russel Westbrook.

OKC Lineup: *Amnesty Perkins.

C- Okafur/Adams/Thabeet
PF- Ibaka/Collison
SF- Durant/Jones
SG- Sefolosha/Lamb/Robinson
PG- Bledsoe/Jackson/Fish

Why OKC? They acquire big expiring contract(probably resign for less money), a future 1st rd pick, and a key piece to build around Durant. Bledsoe, in my opinion, will not command a max contract; I could see him getting a 4yr 40mill max.

PHX Starters: C- Plumlee PF-Morris SF- Morris SG- Dragic PG- Westbrook.

Plenty of cap space, young talent, and now a star to build around your team. In my opinion, PHX will definitely intrigue upcoming free agents to consider signing with the Suns.

nyKnicks126
01-28-2014, 04:30 PM
No. Without Westbrook the Thunder have decreased chance at a title. Also I think that the Thunder would have a hard time to find a trade of equal value for Westbrook .

EL_MACHETE
01-28-2014, 07:04 PM
No. Without Westbrook the Thunder have decreased chance at a title. Also I think that the Thunder would have a hard time to find a trade of equal value for Westbrook .


I couldn't see Okc ever trading Westbrook.

Westbrook and Durant are Great friends and are one of best hard working Duos in the league. (Why fix something if it isn't Broken)

Jamiecballer
01-28-2014, 08:38 PM
I couldn't see Okc ever trading Westbrook.

Westbrook and Durant are Great friends and are one of best hard working Duos in the league. (Why fix something if it isn't Broken)
there is nothing wrong with questioning it's viability long term particularly when there is no real history of this type of situation ending in Championship. that's not to say it can't, just that it hasn't. and if you've got a player of Durants talent you really should win a championship at some point.

holditdown
01-29-2014, 01:20 PM
I couldn't see Okc ever trading Westbrook.

Westbrook and Durant are Great friends and are one of best hard working Duos in the league. (Why fix something if it isn't Broken)

Because a PG with Westbrook's style and usage rate has never won a title before.

EL_MACHETE
01-29-2014, 02:22 PM
Because a PG with Westbrook's style and usage rate has never won a title before.

This is our year
Go Okc!

Prove the doubters wrong

holditdown
01-29-2014, 10:42 PM
KD won the duel with LeBron towards the end of the 3rd quarter.

Is there a duel with Westbrook?
Is there that great ball movement with Westbrook?

numba1CHANGsta
01-29-2014, 10:49 PM
Do you really think this tear is going to last long? OKC needs a second scorer like Westbrook to have a chance at going to the Finals, they won't trade Westbrook, they're not dumb

holditdown
01-29-2014, 10:53 PM
Do you really think this tear is going to last long? OKC needs a second scorer like Westbrook to have a chance at going to the Finals, they won't trade Westbrook, they're not dumb

Reggie Jackson can give you 15 per night. Ibaka without Westbrook can come off the pick and roll for 18 a night.

LJEATON26
01-29-2014, 10:55 PM
Was playing on the trade machine last night.

okc receives pg Brandon jennings, Sg arron afflalo, Detroit 2015 1st round pick and Denver 2014 1st round pick from orlando.

Why for okc: when you trade an all nba player you should be compensated for it. Thunder get two first round picks (1 most likely being a lotto pick in a deep draft) they also receive an upgrade at the 2 guard position and can choose who they would want to start at the point out of jackson/jennings which will give them an insane starting line up and bench.

Detroit receives pg Russell westbrook and Pf Glen davis

why for detroit: they get an all nba player that has 3 years remaining on his contract but his a definite upgrade over jennings. They also receive Glen davis who could give them some nice minutes off the bench behind Drummond and smith. Not the greatest of contracts but he is a free agent as of next year. Also they are close to having a playoff spot so a healthy Westbrook could put them over the top in an awful eastern conference.*

Orlando receives Sg thabo sefolosha, f/c greg monroe, and Pf Charlie Villanueva.*

Why for orlando: they have the 2nd worse record in the league right now so acquiring the expiring contracts of Villanueva and sefolosha ($12.5 million combined) would help them resign Monroe this offseason plus some other nice pieces while still competing for a top 3 pick. Giving them a really nice young core of oladipo, monroe, vucevic and their choice of embiid, wiggins, randle, smart, parker or Exum.

Jamiecballer
01-29-2014, 11:32 PM
Was playing on the trade machine last night.

okc receives pg Brandon jennings, Sg arron afflalo, Detroit 2015 1st round pick and Denver 2014 1st round pick from orlando.

Why for okc: when you trade an all nba player you should be compensated for it. Thunder get two first round picks (1 most likely being a lotto pick in a deep draft) they also receive an upgrade at the 2 guard position and can choose who they would want to start at the point out of jackson/jennings which will give them an insane starting line up and bench.

Detroit receives pg Russell westbrook and Pf Glen davis

why for detroit: they get an all nba player that has 3 years remaining on his contract but his a definite upgrade over jennings. They also receive Glen davis who could give them some nice minutes off the bench behind Drummond and smith. Not the greatest of contracts but he is a free agent as of next year. Also they are close to having a playoff spot so a healthy Westbrook could put them over the top in an awful eastern conference.*

Orlando receives Sg thabo sefolosha, f/c greg monroe, and Pf Charlie Villanueva.*

Why for orlando: they have the 2nd worse record in the league right now so acquiring the expiring contracts of Villanueva and sefolosha ($12.5 million combined) would help them resign Monroe this offseason plus some other nice pieces while still competing for a top 3 pick. Giving them a really nice young core of oladipo, monroe, vucevic and their choice of embiid, wiggins, randle, smart, parker or Exum.

wow. you really don't like Oklahoma do you.

WES KOAST
01-30-2014, 12:34 AM
This is our year
Go Okc!

Prove the doubters wrong

im pulling for okc. westbrook my boy but I think okc is in good hands with Jackson running point.

Jackson imo is a better franchise pg than Bledsoe, maybe not this year but def next year.

EL_MACHETE
01-30-2014, 01:25 AM
wow. you really don't like Oklahoma do you.


I think that trade is HORRIBLE for us..

How about we keep Westbrook and stop these ******** *** trades