Andre Iguodala opts out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

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?

---

I personally only think two arguments can be made:

1. Presti is leaps and bounds better than any GM that tried this same model

2. Presti is a little better than most who tried it, and that combined with the luck of getting the picks he got and the drafts he got them in, equals a model that is very, very, very unlikely to be duplicated.

I can't see a third argument that could be made given everything we know and to me, it is much easier to believe #2 is true than #1.

You disagree. That's fine. Agreement is boring.

If Porter somehow falls to us, do we still try to sign Iggy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soundwave

If Porter somehow falls to us, do we still try to sign Iggy?

---

Nope. I'd imagine Teague or Jennings would be in play though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I personally only think two arguments can be made:

1. Presti is leaps and bounds better than any GM that tried this same model

2. Presti is a little better than most who tried it, and that combined with the luck of getting the picks he got and the drafts he got them in, equals a model that is very, very, very unlikely to be duplicated.

I can't see a third argument that could be made given everything we know and to me, it is much easier to believe #2 is true than #1.

You disagree. That's fine. Agreement is boring.

---

one thing about the "OKC plan" that is inarguable is that they did not splurge on veteran FA's until they knew what they had
what they had turned out to be once-a-generation talent (x3), but still...no jennings/iguodalas/etc in year 2 or 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cgrand

one thing about the "OKC plan" that is inarguable is that they did not splurge on veteran FA's until they knew what they had
what they had turned out to be once-a-generation talent (x3), but still...no jennings/iguodalas/etc in year 2 or 3

---

Right, but you can say that with a lot of teams who tried that same tactic and that same exact plan failed. OKC is the exception, not the rule, with regard to how that exact plan normally turns out. Where have the Kings big free agent splashes been?

It is a very sexy plan to try to emulate. It makes sense in theory if you are a small market. My only point is: Don't just point to OKC and say "See, this plan works!" You gotta look at all the franchises that tried this and calculate their batting average. It is not, by any means, a sure-fire plan of action that you can reasonably expect to duplicate.

no argument on that
as this is an iguodala thread, my point is they should wait
there will be iguodalas available next year, the year after that, and so on
if dell cannot draft well, and monty cannot develop what dell drafts, then 12- 15million dollar 30 yr old are not going to get us where we want to go, in this market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cgrand

no argument on that
as this is an iguodala thread, my point is they should wait
there will be iguodalas available next year, the year after that, and so on
if dell cannot draft well, and monty cannot develop what dell drafts, then 12- 15million dollar 30 yr old are not going to get us where we want to go, in this market

---

I looked up and down that 2014 class of FA's and the best player I could find that we would have a realistic shot of getting is Kyle Lowry. If you see someone else, I might have missed him. I just don't think this is an opportunity that comes along too often, if it is even an opportunity that comes along at all this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

So u want to continue tanking every year. Got it

---

This is the most ridiculous response, ever. There is nothing in my post that suggest continuing to tank. I just think spending 60 million make us a 49 win team is pointless. We were a middle of the pack offensive team with our best player not playing back to backs and our second best player still trying to find his identity as a scorer. Our third best player played very well WITHOUT the advantages of #1 and #2 being factors night in and night out. Continuity is free. Let's at least kick the tires on it and see what internal improvements we have. We can still be players on Dec 15 (when FAs can be traded) and at the deadline.

Would you spend $10,000 to buy new hardwood floors when you could wait a week... take out the existing flooring and see if the original hardwood is salvageable. If so, then the difference in cost goes back into your Renovation budget and now you have MORE to spend on other upgrades. This is how small market teams (and most all teams in the new CBA) have to start thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I personally only think two arguments can be made:

1. Presti is leaps and bounds better than any GM that tried this same model

2. Presti is a little better than most who tried it, and that combined with the luck of getting the picks he got and the drafts he got them in, equals a model that is very, very, very unlikely to be duplicated.

I can't see a third argument that could be made given everything we know and to me, it is much easier to believe #2 is true than #1.

You disagree. That's fine. Agreement is boring.

---

As much as we like to give credit to basketball "people" some just aren't that good. David Kahn, Isaiah Thomas, Michael Jordan come to mind. Most teams aren't building primarily through the draft so there aren't many GM's to compare with Presti. Of course luck factors in but in the sports world luck is when hard work meets opportunity.

I would say the Warriors are have built during the draft and are doing well because of it. David Lee and Carl Landry being the only real FA acquisitions. Curry, Clay, Barnes, Green, and Ezeli(the last 3 in the same draft) all where select via the draft. Lastly Bogut(who really didn't do much this season) and Jack came via trade.

Maybe Deng,Granger,Cousins & Favors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

iggy brings 2 out of 3 things we need right now, defense, and athletic ability. I have no issues signing him to 3 years if we don't have other options. Brewer's stats were not that far off from Iggy and I think will come half as cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I looked up and down that 2014 class of FA's and the best player I could find that we would have a realistic shot of getting is Kyle Lowry. If you see someone else, I might have missed him. I just don't think this is an opportunity that comes along too often, if it is even an opportunity that comes along at all this year.

---

deng?
granger?
sefalosha?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cgrand

deng?
granger?
sefalosha?

---

Yeah, and see I don't think any of those guys are on the same level as Iggy is now. When you add the 2000-3000 minutes Deng will play this year and all the international ball he has played, I would be afraid to give him a 3 or 4 year deal next year.

Granger, who knows how he bounces back, and if he does bounce back, Indy keeps him. So the only way he gets free is if he doesnt bounce back.

Love Sefolosha's defense, but I think he is a quasi starter, not a Team USA caliber player.

If Iggy is realistic. If he says "I want to play in New Orleans." I just don't see how we can pass that up when you consider the likely alternatives

so if its 4/48 you jump?
he'll be playing where the money is, whether its denver or kalamazoo

3/40 to 3/45 I don't hesitate. I jump quick.

4/48 - if everything is fully guaranteed for all 4 years. That makes it really hard for me. I would ask him if we can do a declining structure, where we start at a 13-ish and it is at 11 in that 4th year. If he agrees to that, I say yes. If he doesn't, I would really have to think about it, but I would probably say yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Who was OKC's leader? It's a question that can't be answered. We have high-character guys. We don't have JaVale or Bltache or Cousins.

The Spurs model is the one you ideally try to emulate as a small market team looking for sustained success. OKC binked three studs in a row, which was good drafting in some cases (Westbrook and Harden weren't slam dunk picks IIRC) but very hard to replicate since you're relying on draft position, strength of class, etc.

Spurs got their stud in Duncan, then just drafted ridiculously solid from there on, implimented a good system, kept their player pool more wide open due to scouting of Europe, gravitating away from CelebrityStars. They've just been extremely good at their job. That's really the only system you can emulate as a small market that doesn't involve "laying and praying" for draft picks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

3/40 to 3/45 I don't hesitate. I jump quick.

4/48 - if everything is fully guaranteed for all 4 years. That makes it really hard for me. I would ask him if we can do a declining structure, where we start at a 13-ish and it is at 11 in that 4th year. If he agrees to that, I say yes. If he doesn't, I would really have to think about it, but I would probably say yes

---

what would the spurs do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonsterMash

The Spurs model is the one you ideally try to emulate as a small market team looking for sustained success. OKC binked three studs in a row, which was good drafting in some cases (Westbrook and Harden weren't slam dunk picks IIRC) but very hard to replicate since you're relying on draft position, strength of class, etc.

Spurs got their stud in Duncan, then just drafted ridiculously solid from there on, implimented a good system, kept their player pool more wide open due to scouting of Europe, gravitating away from CelebrityStars. They've just been extremely good at their job. That's really the only system you can emulate as a small market that doesn't involve "laying and praying" for draft picks.

---

The Spurs model is dead IMO. Everybody is scouting euro players now. That market isn't an untapped source anymore. Once Duncan/Parker/Ginobili are done it'll be there ability to draft well that will make or break them. Leonard is a great start.

I would not pay him $15 million year. I have seen suggestions that we offer 3 years/$45 million or 4 years/$52 million and some even more ($15 million a year for 4 years). While I like him, I would not want to pay any more than 3 years/$30 million. However, I think the market for him will be competitive and we will have to overpay to get him (so that will not get it done). Even then, I am not sure he would want to come here. If we had to offer a 4th year, I would hope it would be at team option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

3/40 to 3/45 I don't hesitate. I jump quick.

---

We agree wholeheartedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

The Spurs model is dead IMO. Everybody is scouting euro players now. That market isn't an untapped source anymore. Once Duncan/Parker/Ginobili are done it'll be there ability to draft well that will make or break them. Leonard is a great start.

---

How about George Hill?

It's not just Euro's. They can get good players anywhere they want in the draft because they don't ask them to do much. Or they can go pluck a Danny Green and make him look like a star for the same reason. That model isn't anywhere close to dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

How about George Hill?

It's not just Euro's. They can get good players anywhere they want in the draft because they don't ask them to do much. Or they can go pluck a Danny Green and make him look like a star for the same reason. That model isn't anywhere close to dead.

---

That core is based on there big three. Are you saying they build around role players?

The Iggy situation needs to start from the position of what other offers he's going to get, not what any of us want to pay him.

Remember, he is opting out of a $16 mil season. You think he is going to settle for 3/45? That is essentially 2 years and $29 mil ($1 mil in lost money this year) to him. Sooo...not going to happen.

Its going to take 4 years to get him here, period. And anything less than 4/50+ is a pipe dream. Its the market. Denver will be offering him a fat deal. Other teams will be in play as well. Any talk of 3/45 or 4/48 is just not realistic and shouldn't even be entertained in discussion. The real question is whether you would go 52-55 mil for him, because that is what it will take. We will have to overpay, but it might still be worth it.

No player of his caliber and demand will come cheaply in a dry market like this, much less to a small market lotto team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ogden Park

The Iggy situation needs to start from the position of what other offers he's going to get, not what any of us want to pay him.

Remember, he is opting out of a $16 mil season. You think he is going to settle for 3/45? That is essentially 2 years and $29 mil ($1 mil in lost money this year) to him. Sooo...not going to happen.

Its going to take 4 years to get him here, period. And anything less than 4/50+ is a pipe dream. Its the market. Denver will be offering him a fat deal. Other teams will be in play as well. Any talk of 3/45 or 4/48 is just not realistic and shouldn't even be entertained in discussion. The real question is whether you would go 52-55 mil for him, because that is what it will take. We will have to overpay, but it might still be worth it.

No player of his caliber and demand will come cheaply in a dry market like this, much less to a small market lotto team.

---

I've said from the get go that anything less than the "mini-max" which is the 4/58 million that guys like Eric Gordon and Roy Hibbert got... is not going to cut it. I won't even entertain in discussion thought that we can get Iguodola here for less than 60 million.