What if....OKC Thunder didnt trade anyone

[slamtheking]

The Celtics should take a look at Daniel Orton who was waived...Celtics need a big and Brad Stevens is good with kids...

it doesn't matter how many threads you put this in, it's still a bad idea.  we don't need another player that's still selling themselves as 'potential' to get a roster spot.  we need someone who's actually producing

[green147]

Agreed. People always talk about losing Harden but the Perk trade was bad for them as well. A starting lineup of Westbrook, Harden, Green, Durant and just about any center who could play some defense would've gotten Durant a ring by now. I feel bad for Thunder fans. They have a great team and they sell out every game, but ownership isn't willing to spend to keep the best team on the floor.

[KGs Knee]

If the Thunder didnt trade Green or Harden they wouldnt have gotten any value in return for them because they wouldn't have been able to sign them anyway.

See, this is where I just flat out disagree.  They absolutely would have been able to re-sign them both (although in Green's case it was more a matter of fit than money).  There are no rules that prevent it.  Just a cheapskate owner.  Boo hoo, you have to pay a little lux tax for a few seasons while your core players are in their prime years.  Win a few titles, and whatever year-to-year operating losses are incurred will easily be made back in franchise valuation (the money would probably be made back even without the titles-see Sacramento Kings).  It's a narrow-minded approach to team ownership, if you ask me.

They would go bankrupt.

Yeah, I seriously doubt their billionaire owner is going to go bankrupt over a few seasons of lux tax payments.  He's got the bankroll to afford it.  But, like most sports owners, they just don't care to spend any of their own money, and instead treat  their teams like your standard business.  Always looking out for the bottom line.  A good owner, in my opinion, wouldn't worry abut a few seasons of financial losses, pay the lux tax from their own pocket, and possibly collect a few trophies in the process.

As a sports franchise owner, if you aren't willing to do so, you shouldn't be an owner.

[Fafnir]

Why should a sports owner be expected to lose money on a business?

Not only that its rare that one owner truly owns the entire teams now-a-days. Its tough to get an entire ownership group behind losing money, so is the controlling owner willing to kick in all of the money to fund the team at a loss if he only owns 30-50% or something like that?

Besides "Billionaire" sports owners often aren't nearly as rich as they present themselves. Look at what Frank McCourt managed to do with the Dodgers.

Of course luxury tax induced business "losses" are artificial in their very nature. The NBA still generates a massive profit from the Thunder, but its redistributed away if they're very far into the tax.

[Fafnir]

Agreed. People always talk about losing Harden but the Perk trade was bad for them as well. A starting lineup of Westbrook, Harden, Green, Durant and just about any center who could play some defense would've gotten Durant a ring by now. I feel bad for Thunder fans. They have a great team and they sell out every game, but ownership isn't willing to spend to keep the best team on the floor.

Ibaka is a far better player than Green at PF, Green was moved to clear up salary and minutes for Ibaka.

[KGs Knee]

Why should a sports owner be expected to lose money on a business?

Because sports are supposed to be about winning, and fielding the best roster possible.

And as I've said before, what are a few years of operating losses, when the value of the franchise continues to go up anyways.  They ain't really losing money.

Did you see how much money the sad-sac Kings sold for?  Point. Set. Match.

These owners got nothing to complain about.

Now here's a better question.  Why, as a fan, should I spend my money on the team, when the owner is putting out a less than optimal product, and forgoing winning in the name of a bottom line?  If the owner isn't willing to spend, I sure ain't.

[Moranis]

Agreed. People always talk about losing Harden but the Perk trade was bad for them as well. A starting lineup of Westbrook, Harden, Green, Durant and just about any center who could play some defense would've gotten Durant a ring by now. I feel bad for Thunder fans. They have a great team and they sell out every game, but ownership isn't willing to spend to keep the best team on the floor.

Ibaka is a far better player than Green at PF, Green was moved to clear up salary and minutes for Ibaka.

But he wasn't actually.  Ibaka's minutes didn't increase at all after the Green trade.  In fact his minutes are basically the same now as they were at the time Green was traded 3 years ago.  The problem in OKC has always been that Scott Brooks just isn't a very good coach.  He isn't a great play caller and his rotations and minutes have always been atrocious.  Sure Green and Durant aren't the greatest fit in the world, but a good coach easily could have made it work and would have figured out a much better rotation scheme.  I mean Krstic and Collison were getting huge minutes at the time of the trade instead of say Ibaka.

[Kuberski1]

They didn't lose much by trading Green....he would have become a bench player, and OKC would have had to obtained another big.   

But boy oh boy, if they'd have kept Harden....best team in the league, even over the South Beach gang.   Durant, Westbrook, and Harden....with an Ibaka thrown in?   Wow....that's a team.  That still kills me...

[Fafnir]

Why should a sports owner be expected to lose money on a business?

Because sports are supposed to be about winning, and fielding the best roster possible.

And as I've said before, what are a few years of operating losses, when the value of the franchise continues to go up anyways.  They ain't really losing money.

Did you see how much money the sad-sac Kings sold for?  Point. Set. Match.

These owners got nothing to complain about.

Cash flow matters. Their franchise value might be appreciating but that doesn't mean that you can continually sink cash year to year to pay for a "winner".

Did you see what happened to the sad-sac Kings when their owners got cheap? Did you see what happened to the Pistons when they were for sale and tied Dumars hands preventing him from taking on any money at all? The franchise was in stasis unable to make moves for the long term.

I appreciate it when owners are willing to pay money and lose money to win. I don't think it should be the expectation of fans.