See, to me, that's the difference between Ainge and Presti.
Ainge would never ever waste or ever let Harden go. If he did let him go, he would've asked for almost nothing short of the moon. OKC has literally nothing to show for Harden's departure, and literally squandered so many chances of contention by not putting the right players around Westbrook, Ibaka, and Durant.
Agreed. With the exception of that crazy guy in Clippers (who the NBA finally managed to get rid off) OKC easily qualifies for one of the worst front offices in NBA history.
They kept a mediocre coach for way too long, they have given full permission to Westbrook to do whatever he likes (big mistake IMO, esp in playoffs) and they let Harden walk away for little return.
Cherry on the cake, they let Reggie Jackson, a hustle player and a real PG (with a good win share) walk away for nearly nothing after letting him rot on the bench for years. And to think that he had emerged as the leader of the team while Westbrook and KD were both injured.
The revisionist history is strong with this take.
elaborate?
Sure.
The Thunder traded reigning Sixth Man of the Year and projected starting-caliber player James Harden for Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, two first rounders (Steven Adams and Mitch McGary), and a second rounder. At the time, the Harden trade was controversial, but
not because it was viewed as though they sold him for "cheap." The return was considered more than fair; people just questioned the wisdom of trading away a core player merely months after a Finals appearance.
The issue is that people retroactively judge the trade as though the Thunder traded MVP-caliber James Harden; the James Harden that was traded from OKC wasn't nearly the same player that the James Harden in 2015 is. Harden's blossomed into the superstar he is largely because he was given the opportunity to command his own team. Remember, there were a few eyebrows raised around the league when Houston immediately maxed Harden, since it was seen as a bit of a gamble. It paid off for them.
The trade didn't end up working out as far as what OKC got back in return, but they most certainly didn't trade him for "little to no return." Adams and McGary are looking like promising rotation pieces, Martin was a fantastic sixth man for OKC in his one season there, and the least you can say about Abrines (who was drafted with the second rounder) is that he's intriguing; really, the truly disappointing part of the return was Lamb, who was an unquestioned bust.
As far as Brooks, were they supposed to fire Brooks immediately after his poor Finals showing? That's kind of a rash move for a successful coach who had the support of a young team. I would imagine most teams would have given him another shot to show he's worthy of coaching the team.
So they traded Harden, went on to have their best season ever (remember how historically dominant the Warriors were this year? That was OKC in 2013 to a very slightly lesser degree), only to have their postseason hopes dashed due to Westbrook's injury. Was that the year to fire Brooks? His team was coming off their most successful season ever and he just lost one of his two best players in the playoffs. What exactly warranted his dismissal then?
The next year, they largely kept pace with their 2013 season (without being nearly as dominant) despite Westbrook missing large chunks of the season. You could argue that this would've been an appropriate time to fire him after their early playoff exit, but again, they ended up losing a key player in Ibaka. Even still, I'll submit that Brooks didn't necessarily make a great case as to why he deserved to remain the coach, but I don't see how firing him then would've changed how this past season played out. New coach or not, the Thunder were screwed when the injury bug decided to hit them hard this year.
As far as Reggie Jackson, the idea that he rotted "on the bench for years" is just patently false. As a rookie on a title contending team, he spent much of his time playing in the D-League... which is standard operating procedure for rookies on such teams. His second year, he earned more playing time with the Thunder, but was still largely unproven and didn't play much -- until the playoffs, when Westbrook was injured and Brooks entrusted Reggie to start in his place. Reggie was wildly impressive and his playoff performance earned him the sixth man role next year -- that is, when he wasn't playing starter minutes due to Westbrook's absences.
This year, Reggie had the green light: Durant was out to start the year and Westbrook got injured minutes into the second game of the season. What did Reggie do once he returned from a minor injury that sidelined him for the first few games? He "emerged" as such a "great" leader for the team during this time that he ended up getting
frozen out by Ibaka and Perkins during his season debut due to selfish play. That was a trend with Reggie this entire year; he got minutes, but he wasn't happy because he wanted to be the starting point guard. He didn't want to start as the 2, he wasn't a good fit at the 2 due to streaky shooting and lack of defensive focus, and there was no way in hell he was pushing Westbrook over to the 2, so he played lethargically and selfishly when he got in the game. His play took such a nosedive that the Thunder ended up trading for Waiters largely as his potential replacement. Reggie's agent then leaked that they'd requested a trade and the Thunder honored his demand, turning him and a highly-protected first rounder into extremely valuable depth.
How in the world is that letting him "walk away for nothing"? He wasn't helping a team that was in dire need of his aid due to massive injury concerns, he had his agent leak a trade request, and the cloud over him was disrupting the chemistry of a team that simply couldn't afford it. The Thunder acquired three valuable rotation players (and a good locker room guy/Kanter mentor in Steve Novak) for a guy who was disgruntled and wanted out. That's making lemonade out of lemons.
Poll
Topic: Poll: If we signed Durant, How many years till we won a title. (Read 5992 times)