Andre Iguodala opts out

[MichaelMcNamara]

The OKC model should never be allowed to be discussed IMO. They had four top 5 picks in 3 years, in three pretty good to great drafts. They had the 7th and 8th most lotto balls and moved up to #2 in a draft that had an all-timer (Durant) and #3 in a draft that saw Memphis take Thabeet at #2.

They got lucky in two lotteries and were lucky to do it in strong drafts. Yes, they made the right picks, but there was so much luck. That Durant year, they should have been picking 7th. If they get Corey Brewer instead of Durant, nobody is talking about the OKC model, even if they get Westbook and Harden too.

If we want to try to replicate that model, we will fail. It was 1 in a million to get that lucky twice in the lotto and do it in strong years. It is so pointless to talk about that model IMO

[Snarly]

You're right, it's not a feasible model. a 30ppg player only comes around ever so often.... and even so, it takes a special one to impact the game the way Durant does.

[Smow-]

When your team is clearly going to struggle in a rebuilding phase, I believe the Thunder model is not a bad option for years 1-3. No way should it be any longer. Get your 3 tries in the high lottery, and see how it pans out. The idea is you begin to build a culture while trying not to "Chris Paul Catapult" your team into greatness. As long as you win big during one of those three years, you should be in position to then replicate the spurs model in some fashion baised off of who your big fish is.

We got incredibly lucky and won big the 1st offseason of our rebuild phase in AD. Now we build around him immediately knowing we have at least 7 more years left to make him a Pel for life.

[Mythrol]

The Thunder model doesn't apply anyway because we are a year ahead of them. We already have Gordon and AD. We already have key pieces at other positions on good contracts (Anderson, Lopez, Gravy). Dell and Monty have already said it and people need to realize, this IS the last major year of the rebuild. Whatever pieces we get in this draft and this offseason (barring we completely miss out on anyone) we will our team moving forward for a few years.

This isn't a discussion about what's the "best" why of handling things. This is the reality of what Dell and Monty are doing. One more draft pick and key offseason signings. Waiting until next year, while maybe you would do it, doesn't appear to be in the cards for us. So... Given the situation, who do you think is a better fit this offseason? Because this is when we make our last big moves.

Personally, I'm giving it to Iggy. We've already seen what ONE player can do to a team like the Rockets. Gordon coming back healthy, Davis a year older and hopefully 7 pounds heavier, Iggy for defense and handling the ball, Anderson as a sharpshooter. There's worst big 3/4s out there. Heck I'd take that team over the clippers now. And if Rivers comes on like people are hoping. . .we're sitting pretty.

[HornetGuru]

Agree, thunder model was once in a life time, we will build as the spurs did

[Mythrol]

Agree, thunder model was once in a life time, we will build as the Pelicans

Fify

[cgrand]

Personally, I'm giving it to Iggy. We've already seen what ONE player can do to a team like the Rockets. Gordon coming back healthy, Davis a year older and hopefully 7 pounds heavier, Iggy for defense and handling the ball, Anderson as a sharpshooter. There's worst big 3/4s out there. Heck I'd take that team over the clippers now. And if Rivers comes on like people are hoping. . .we're sitting pretty.

are you comparing iguodala to harden?
because it sounds like thats what you are doing

[MichaelMcNamara]

Harden is a 9 on offense and was a 2 or 3 on defense this year

Iggy is a 5 on offense and an 8 or 9 on defense.

Although fans love offense and will say Harden clearly is the better player, I think you can argue they have a similar overall impact

[50_Hornet]

Speaking of Spurs, I think this team can form a similar type configuration (over time) as these guys grow up.

-Huge fan of drafting Burke, watching him (and his highlights) remind me a lot of a young Tony Parker.

Adding Iggy right now will allow our young players to not only grow but get playoff experience.

If I could compare our players to the spurs , well I really can't Spurs are one win away from a title right now, but if I could this is how I see it.

Lopez - Splitter, heck put any halfwy decent Offensive with a little D , center here. Check.

AD - Timmy D, time will tell if he can even sniff greatest PF all time jock strap but if he does ill be dancing in the street!

Iggy - Kahwi Leonard, only problem here is can Iggy drain the 3 constantly when needed to stretch the D?

Gordon - Danny Green, this totally depends when and were Gordon gets hurt...AGAIN!

Burke - Our soon to be growing Young Tony Parker.

Rivers - Manu G. , kind of funny actually, both players like to go to one side all the time and can be turnover prone. Again one of these instances where you hope Rivers can even rise to meet Ginobli's worse season :-( .

Anderson - Better than Diaw, nuff said

Smith - Great C for a bench team.

To me Iggy is the key to allowing us to gain experience for when all these guys hit their prime, we will be looking for a 3rd or 4th option on the team, not a first or second.

[DroopyDawg]

Burke isn't nearly as quick as Parer is but I love his playmaking ability. Even Burke says he's working on getting quicker.

[THRILLHOUSE]

In four games against Denver, Harden only shot 38% (21 of 55), averaging 5.5 turnovers per game, with a line of 18.2/4.5/3.75. Iggy shot 46% (22 of 48) against Houston (again, not sure if Harden defended him) with a 15/7/5.7 line + 3.5 TOs. It just shows that while Iguodala didn't have significantly better numbers than his averages on the season, he clearly won the battle with an MVP runner up.

Here's an article about Iggy defending Harden in their first matchup:
http://www.denverpost.com/nuggets/ci...ts-star-harden

[Mythrol]

are you comparing iguodala to harden?
because it sounds like thats what you are doing

Yes. I am. While I'd rather have Harden due to his age they are both Olympians and I think would have similar although different impacts on this team. As Mc has already said, while Harden is a 9 on Offense, he's a 2 or 3 on defense. Iggy is a 9 on defense and a 5 or 6 (due to how many assists he gets) on offense.

People are minimizing the impact Ig would have because he's not all offense like the "stars" are.

[wuggie]

Heck even if Iggy sucks at the end of his contract when can resign him for cheap as a veteran bench/role player. He can also replace Gordon if hes traded since he can play SF and SG. Then we could draft Saric next year possibly and play him at the SF if that happens.

[HornetGuru]

are you comparing iguodala to harden?
because it sounds like thats what you are doing

regardless of iggy i think gordon is on harden's level when healthy and iggy is better than parsons

[tyler]

And so because there's no perennial all-stars on the market, you pay a worse player with the same kind of money. Yeah, it makes so much sense.

Who do you think we are talking about... teams aren't lining for this guy cause he is garbage

[smcgull]

I just hope they don't overpay for his abilities, whatever they are. They got away from paying too much for older players and I hope they keep it that way.

[Blattman]

Who do you think we are talking about... teams aren't lining for this guy cause he is garbage

I'm tired of repeating myself. Please go read my other posts.

[da ThRONe]

The OKC model should never be allowed to be discussed IMO. They had four top 5 picks in 3 years, in three pretty good to great drafts. They had the 7th and 8th most lotto balls and moved up to #2 in a draft that had an all-timer (Durant) and #3 in a draft that saw Memphis take Thabeet at #2.

They got lucky in two lotteries and were lucky to do it in strong drafts. Yes, they made the right picks, but there was so much luck. That Durant year, they should have been picking 7th. If they get Corey Brewer instead of Durant, nobody is talking about the OKC model, even if they get Westbook and Harden too.

If we want to try to replicate that model, we will fail. It was 1 in a million to get that lucky twice in the lotto and do it in strong years. It is so pointless to talk about that model IMO

It's crazy hearing people say it's all luck. Westbrook and Harden where the Dion Waiters of their drafts both all-star players luck right? Ibaka was the 24th pick luck right? They were able to secure Jeff Green as a drafted prospect from Boston. Presti has an eye for draft prospects saying it is just luck is disrespectful to what the man has done.

[MichaelMcNamara]

It's crazy hearing people say it's all luck. Westbrook and Harden where the Dion Waiters of their drafts both all-star players luck right? Ibaka was the 24th pick luck right? They were able to secure Jeff Green as a drafted prospect from Boston. Presti has an eye for draft prospects saying it is just luck is disrespectful to what the man has done.

Don't exaggerate other people's positions. Nobody said it was ALL luck. It was clearly said that he made the right moves after he got lucky enough to get those picks. But yes, getting the 2nd pick in that draft when they had the 7th most ping pong balls was luck. Not getting the #1 pick was luck, because they would have taken Oden. If they are drafting 7 that year, nobody they took could have possibly had the impact Durant did, so even if he was this super genius you seem to think he is (do I have to remind you he also took Cole Aldrich over Larry Sanders and others?), who could he have taken at 7 that year to make this OKC model look so good?

This is why I am saying that replicating this model should not be attempted, because in order to replicate it, you would need to get insanely lucky in the lottery and they would have to be the right lotteries. Washington, for instance, got super lucky and moved up in the 2010 lotto and in this years' lotto. So what? No Durant's in either of those classes, so how can they be OKC?

Yes, he made the right picks, but without the luck and without it happening in the right classes, all his genius wouldn't have mattered. Following that model would be foolish because you can not bank on that luck and you can not bank on getting that luck in the right years

[da ThRONe]

Don't exaggerate other people's positions. Nobody said it was ALL luck. It was clearly said that he made the right moves after he got lucky enough to get those picks. But yes, getting the 2nd pick in that draft when they had the 7th most ping pong balls was luck. Not getting the #1 pick was luck, because they would have taken Oden. If they are drafting 7 that year, nobody they took could have possibly had the impact Durant did, so even if he was this super genius you seem to think he is (do I have to remind you he also took Cole Aldrich over Larry Sanders and others?), who could he have taken at 7 that year to make this OKC model look so good?

This is why I am saying that replicating this model should not be attempted, because in order to replicate it, you would need to get insanely lucky in the lottery and they would have to be the right lotteries. Washington, for instance, got super lucky and moved up in the 2010 lotto and in this years' lotto. So what? No Durant's in either of those classes, so how can they be OKC?

Yes, he made the right picks, but without the luck and without it happening in the right classes, all his genius wouldn't have mattered. Following that model would be foolish because you can not bank on that luck and you can not bank on getting that luck in the right years

Well according to many of you we already got insanely lucky.

As far as Oden goes much of that is on their medical staff. I don't think all their injury issues where just bad "luck".

Again many people thought he reached for both Westbrook and Harden. So to say that he may not have gotten those players is crazy talk. They jumped from 5th to 2nd to draft Durant, they fell from 2nd to 4th when they drafted Westbrook, and they moved up a whopping one spot from 4th to 3rd to select Harden. Explain to me how they got so insanely lucky?

[MichaelMcNamara]

Well according to many of you we already got insanely lucky.

As far as Oden goes much of that is on their medical staff. I don't think all their injury issues where just bad "luck".

Again many people thought he reached for both Westbrook and Harden. So to say that he may not have gotten those players is crazy talk. They jumped from 5th to 2nd to draft Durant, they fell from 2nd to 4th when they drafted Westbrook, and they moved up a whopping one spot from 4th to 3rd to select Harden. Explain to me how they got so insanely lucky?

Because of the drafts they did it in. Yes, I agree we got our Durant in AD because I do believe he will be a top 3 NBA player when he hits his prime. But we don't have a Ray Allen that we can trade for another top 5 pick in a good draft. There are no Westbrook's or Harden's in this draft. So how do we replicate that model? How can we magically make this draft strong? We have no control over that. Even super genius Sam Presti can not make this draft good.

[da ThRONe]

Because of the drafts they did it in. Yes, I agree we got our Durant in AD because I do believe he will be a top 3 NBA player when he hits his prime. But we don't have a Ray Allen that we can trade for another top 5 pick in a good draft. There are no Westbrook's or Harden's in this draft. So how do we replicate that model? How can we magically make this draft strong? We have no control over that. Even super genius Sam Presti can not make this draft good.

You don't know who is in this draft. Again people thought Westbrook and Harden weren't worthy of their respective picks. OKC got Jeff Green with the 5th pick. And while it's goes to show you how well Presti drafts Green only netted them Perkins.

I don't think this draft is much weaker than last years draft. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if we get more all-stars from this draft than last year. You speak in certainty about something that hasn't even taken place yet. Which makes you come off as smug. I would think you would have been wrong enough in to be more humble.

[MichaelMcNamara]

If a Westbrook or Harden type (top 10-12 player) emerges from this draft, at pick 6 or later mind you, then I will gladly admit I was wrong. I have no problem doing that. But that appears rather unlikely and I am sure even good old Sam would agree with that.

But yes, anything can happen, and because of that we can make our arguments look strong because they can't be proven wrong. I can not prove, at this point, that there won't be a top 10 player at six. But what I can say with empirical facts to back me up is that the "Thunder model" has failed 10x more often then it has succeeded. Your argument seems to be that a great GM can overcome that, I disagree. No matter how great your GM is, you would have to get so lucky to replicate it.

I just think it is more logical to say that all the other GM's who tried to replicate that model weren't as lucky as opposed to saying that Sam Presti is so much smarter than everyone else who tried it. I mean, this is the same guy who draft Cole Aldrich and traded Harden for what looks like will amount to Jeremy Lamb and whoever they take at 12, so I just find it so hard to say he is a genius and everyone else who tried this path and failed are fools.

[da ThRONe]

If a Westbrook or Harden type (top 10-12 player) emerges from this draft, at pick 6 or later mind you, then I will gladly admit I was wrong. I have no problem doing that. But that appears rather unlikely and I am sure even good old Sam would agree with that.

But yes, anything can happen, and because of that we can make our arguments look strong because they can't be proven wrong. I can not prove, at this point, that there won't be a top 10 player at six. But what I can say with empirical facts to back me up is that the "Thunder model" has failed 10x more often then it has succeeded. Your argument seems to be that a great GM can overcome that, I disagree. No matter how great your GM is, you would have to get so lucky to replicate it.

I just think it is more logical to say that all the other GM's who tried to replicate that model weren't as lucky as opposed to saying that Sam Presti is so much smarter than everyone else who tried it. I mean, this is the same guy who draft Cole Aldrich and traded Harden for what looks like will amount to Jeremy Lamb and whoever they take at 12, so I just find it so hard to say he is a genius and everyone else who tried this path and failed are fools.

Everybody says if this type of talent emerges, but nobody had a clue Harden or Westbrook would be what they are. Unless we are talking about guys who are insane prospects(Wiggins, Rose, James, Davis, Cooke, Wall) nobody likes to safely project them and even some of those guys don't live up to expectations.

I'm not pointing out the obvious to win an argument I'm pointing out the obvious because it's just that. Projecting a class to be weak is one thing saying it's weak before they're even drafted is just wrong.

Presti moving Harden was clearly salary cap based and before we pass judgment how about we see how Lamb develops. Also the guy has one bad pick out of about 10 and that's your proof he isn't just that much better than the next GM?

[MonsterMash]

I mean, Noel (or Len?) is no Davis as a #1 overall prospect, but I think McLemore is a stronger prospect than Beal and MKG were a year ago. I think this year's draft has a weak #1 pick, but that's about it.