I agree in general that trading your franchise player in his prime to start over is not a rational thing to do. The probability of gain rather than loss is just too low. But I can understand JayZ's sentiment. I guess Rockets fans got burned in the Francis-Mobley era and then by the Yao-McGrady era, and then by the Dwight tenure. By the time Francis entered his prime, it was clear that he couldn't lead a team to championship. So when McGrady was available, we jumped on it. The Yao-McGrady era was even sadder in that it was much more promising than Francis. Then both Yao and TMac became injury prone. I remember at the time, many people, including myself reasoned that the chances of getting better by trading either of those guys were pretty slim. (Of course, we also knew that Les wouldn't get rid of Yao.) By the time TMac was unplayable, it was too late to get anything from trading him. Morey actually worked a miracle using TMac's contract to extract a bunch of assets out of the Kings and the Knicks. Dwight was kind of the same. He was supposed to be Harden's "cornerstone' we were going to build on. Then it was gradually clear that he had a mind of a baby and by the time we got the wake up call, it was too late. He had become a worthless asset. So we have been burned not once, not twice, but three times in recent history by so-called "fool's gold" franchise players. The rationale is that if you see that these guys isn't good enough, get a bunch from trading them before it is too late. I get the rationale. But I don't think it is time to give up on Harden unless we are sure what his problems are. Maybe the FO already knows. But we fans and the media are still spilling theory after theory and nobody can prove anything. So getting rid of your franchise player without knowing for sure he is beyond redemption is just too rash of a move.
Easy, it isn't so much about being burned. It isn't even about "hating" a player. I'm not tinman here. I appreciate what Francis did, what T-Mac did, etc. I'm not one to typically get on a player for "giving up" or "choking". The only guy like that I really dislike is Scottie Pippen. Case that one year in Houston was so disastrous. It's just about calling a spade a spade. I've laid out what Harden's problems are (turnovers, reliance on FTAs, no defense). He's just not as good as most of the other all-nba players in the league, in terms of athletic ability, or skill set. This isn't about hating him. Frankly, considering how amazing he's been as a legit op 3 MVP candidate multiple times, it speaks to how crafty and successful he's been. It's amazing how he's maximized his abilities. Even with all that, was Game 6 an abberation? Sure. But even with that, the only path to a ring is that Harden is Hakeem like in that he "changes" enough in the next 5 years to finally be the man to lead a team to a ring towards the end of his peak. And while that's obviously a possibility, to me, the difference between him and Hakeem, is that Hakeem's change was almost entirely about mindset and trusting his teammates. He was all that time an elite offensive player and elite defensive player. He didn't have "flaws" in the way that Harden is flawed by just being horrible at defense, horrible (as in worst ever) at turnovers. Dirk is maybe an even better/closer example, since you can argue Dirk was flawed defensively... except that was a bit overblow, he led his team to the Finals and what should have been a ring at age 27, became a beast of a rebounder in the playoffs and outperformed in the playoffs as much as underperformed. I just don't see how anyone can seriously look at the last 5 years, most of which from Harden include either playoff chokes or just under-performance because of what he is, can recognize the serious flaws to his game (I've laid out), can look at the current NBA landscape, can look at the Rockets current assets and cap space (or lack thereof), can look at the head coach (who never produces a top 10 defense, which is almost universally required and is an even bigger problem considering Harden doesn't play defense)... and can legitimately lay out a scenario whereby Harden leads this team to a championship ring in the next 5 years....?? Relative to your point, I don't think Harden will burn us over the next few years when the Rockets inevitably end the season with a 2nd/3rd round exit... it'll just be what/who he is. Just like Francis didn't burn us - he led to TMac, and frankly TMac didn't burn us, even though some hate him - dude just got worn down by injuries ultimately.
The key to a successful trade is that you get the best player out of that trade. You can receive an assortment back (a la what we sent out to get Harden), but winning and losing a trade depends greatly on you getting the best player in hand after. There are notable exceptions (the Howard LA deal is possibly the biggest one, also you might be able to argue Boston's sheer destruction of the nets as another), but I think it's a half way decent metric. Can we flip James Harden for a player better than he is? No, that answer is a flat out no. Can we even flip James for a guy who will be better than he is? That's a risky path to go down, but aside from a number one draft pick who has shown a pattern of success, I think the answer is still a no (at least enough of a no that any GM who likes his job won't do that deal). Go back to the McGrady deal, as much as it pains me to say, Mac was the best player in that deal. Look at the Lakers and the flip of the Gasol brothers, while Marc looks great right now, Pau got them their ring. There are maybe 10 players in the NBA who are as good, if not better than Harden, and no deal will ever be reached in bringing any of them here. James is our franchise player, not because he's the best that we can get, but because he is one of the best in the league. You don't flip one of the best in the league for a pu pu platter and hope that a draft pick pans out.
This is a bit of selective case studies though. You already mentioned the Nets deal. Clearly Boston got the better end of that deal, even though they didn't get the best player. But there's also the Carmelo deal. The Deron Williams deal.(utah got favors, devin harris and 2 picks, one of which was the #3 pick in a draft that turned into Enes Kanter). Also, it's a bit of a confusion of causation/correlation. Who knows what comes first here?? Because in almost all cases the reason the superstar is being traded is just because it simply isn't working where they're at. So even TMac trade. did Orlando win that trade or get better? no... but it wasn't working with TMac either. Obviously you don't just trade a Harden type player if there's still a chance it can work in your organization / culture. Beyond that, as a vocal trade Harden now guy... I'm proposing trading him for things that include a return which would be a #1 pick (or multiple top 3 type picks). Do you think the Magic would be better off had they kept TMac, the Nuggets had they kept Melo, the Jazz had they kept Williams, the Twolves had they kept KG, the Pelicans had they kept CP3, the Sonics had they kept Ray Allen, the Grizzlies had they kept Pau, etc.?? I can see a few more moderately successful seasons, but the breakup would have been inevitable.
I probably didn't say it clearly enough. When I said "burned" I didn't mean the players. I meant the situation of getting stuck by a not-good-enough franchise player. I don't hate those players either. I have criticized the games of Francis and Harden. I don't remember criticizing the game of McGrady as much. (In my opinion, in terms of pure overall basketball talent, McGrady is the best among those three.) I understand that you are not hating on Harden either. But I do think that past experiences in Rockets history probably affect how we see our franchise player. We learned out lessons, so to speak.
You are banking on so much luck and fortune by investing in picks. We aren't an LA, or a NY, where even when we suck we can attract talent. A trade involving Harden puts us in a dark era, like the sixers are in now. A lot of teams take years to come out of that, if they even do. Banking on picks sounds like an investment filled with far more risk. Any trade involving Harden doesn't move the Rockets forward, it moves them back hoping they can even make it back to the spot they are currently in. I don't know about you, but I'm not about to quit my job to work as a janitor at another company hoping I get the same job if not a better one down the road. It's a different story if you're talking about an aging superstar. It's a different story if you're talking about a player passed his prime. It's a different story if you're talking about an injury prone player. Deron Williams was on the decline and on the wrong end of his plateau when Utah traded him. Denver has struggled to be relevant since trading Carmelo. Banking on those picks, and hoping we get that one player who can take us to WCF or God forbid a championship, when we have a guy who has done one of those things already in hand is lunacy. Cleveland had a ton of number one picks after LeBron left, and it wasn't until LeBron came back that they did anything meaningful. Banking on the draft is a fool's errand.
I don't disagree with anything you say. What I am saying is that past lessons tell us if it is clear that the guy isn't going to lead us into the promise land, it'd be better to part way while he still had high value. But this is a risky business and should be used as a desperate measure rather than a normal operation decision. I just don't agree with JayZ in his certainty of Harden's flaws not being likely to be fixed.
What if I told you there is a folklore about a flawed center that the rockets once had? He was seen as a guy who wasn't in it, he picked fights and some say even faked an injury. This guy went as far as to request a trade, and a lot of people thought he wouldn't lead us to the promise land. That little boy in my story, he grew up to be the greatest rocket in history. Tinman knows a lot more about him. I don't think the past tells us anything more than what kind of talent James has. He is buying into MDAs system, now we need to go out there and get him a running mate.
Agreed. You are banking on luck. And agreed, the city doesn't have the draw of an LA or NYK, or now GSW, or Miami, or Cleveland, or Boston even, or etc. Of course, for those reasons, I don't put too much stock in meaningfully improving via free agency either. I mean I guess you could have pointed to Harden, the 55 wins, the fun, high scoring offense, etc. But I think the best FAs out there recognize what we recognize. Houston doesn't have a winning culture or identity. They have a gimmicky offense led by a top 10 player, sure, but one that is flawed. If I'm Gordon Hayward, and if I'm serious about leaving Utah, I look at two options - Boston, or see if San Antonio can make room. I understand there are definitely different levels of dark eras. There's Sixers/Kings type purgatory, there's Blazers type purgatory, there's Rockets type stuck at this level, and there's Clippers type purgatory - which might be worst of all, all their pieces are there, they just manage to f' it up somehow every time. So I guess it depends on your age, what type of fan you are, etc. At this point in my life, unless I see a path towards getting a ring, I'm a find a way to get there or bust type guy. I think it's foolish to think that going into a dark ages of lottery meaningfully transforms the culture or something. We're not the Spurs rebuilding here. It absolutely can be. But I've looked beyond Harden. How does this team get enough talent to win the West in the next 5 years? How does it add not 1 but 2 all-star like players? Who aren't themselves flawed in a postseason under-performance kind of way? Who mesh with Harden - who isn't the easiest superstar player to mesh with? Who compensate for Harden's flaws, which are magnified in the post season. It moves them back hoping they make it to a spot where they can win a ring sooner than they currently can. IMO, that requires a trade. I don't envision Harden's tenure with the Rockets ending with a ring. Not sure how I can envision it. It requires A LOT MORE talent on the team. That's revisionist. Williams was traded at 26. There was no sign at all he'd be on the decline. Again, revisionist. Melo was also 26 when traded, btw. But to this point, without Melo, the Nuggets lost in the first round. They also lost in the first round the next year. And they lost in the first round the following year as well. What did they do before they traded Melo. They lost in the first round with him. I mean they lost in teh first round every year with him except that one. And oh btw, there best record basically every is 57-25, which they did in 2012-2013, 2 years after trading Melo. They lost in the first round, as that was a Celtics like team of solid players with no star, but the end result was the same. They've struggled since, as after that year they moved on from AI, and Gallinari got injured. Gallinari is a really solid player - just too injured, too often. I don't care about WCF appearances. I barely care about Finals appearances. I want championships. I hate feeling like a fan of some second class sports city where doing really really well but still losing is ok. I remember that feeling when the Stros went to the Series. And granted in baseball it means something a bit different given the history of the Series and "pennants" meaning something. But still, I remember a city so excited to have just made it. Then they got smoked 4-0 in the series, lol. I want highest upside opportunities. Sure, and that's to my point. Look, I'm happy to say you probably can build a championship team without a player your team drafted high in the lotto (or in the lotto - Kawhi) that is an all-nba, mvp, HOF type guy. I think it has to be possible. Of course, ultimately, that's ALMOST NEVER happened in the last few decades. There's the Pistons, who through a series of underperfomance by certain players in their current positions, cobbled together multiple top lotto picks, and the Celtics, who nonetheless had Pierce as their foundational piece. But as I've noted, I think on top of that, there are two things that push me over the edge: - there's banking on draft picks, and there's getting literally a #1 draft pick. I'm not sure what ytpe of deal Ainge would do, but I'm talking about getting this years pick (likely 1 or 2), next year's Nets pick and a couple more assets. Magic Johnson would love to have Harden and give up a boatload for him. The Knicks could luck into a top 3 pick and Phil could decide to do something crazy like moving Porzingis for the pick for a guy like Harden (which would be foolish, but this is Phil). I'm talking about clearly a transformational trade that on its surface is clearly and obviously better than basically any of the past examples. - the force that is the GSW is rare in NBA history. I know many people say "you never know"... which is true. but what i do know is their top players, all of whom are all-nba or extremely close every year, two of whom are MVP candidates (both of whom I'd prefer over Harden 100% of the time), and one of whom is perhaps the greatest glue guy the NBA has seen in decades, are aged 26, 28, 28 and 26, and the GSW can afford to keep them [unlike the Thunder], and that even when one goes down don't seem to miss a step. Does this mean they'll win the next 5 championships. No. There is this thing called Lebron. There is this thing called Pop. But it makes the prospect of the Rockets overtaking them, with a leader who has a LOT to change, very very unlikely. I'm not saying you absolutely HAVE to trade Harden. I am saying this offseason would represent the MAX of Harden's value. He's locked up long-term. He's still in the relatively early stages of his prime. He's had a redeeming season. This draft is LOADED. Next year's draft looks to be loaded. Maximizing current roster anyways is likely an exercise in futility. It's not going to happen... but worth exploring.
Do you really think Harden is on the same level as Hakeem, even before he changed his trust and won the MVP and championships? He was a dominant two way player before that. The flaws in his game were almost entirely "mental". Harden is an awesome, amazing player. Who literally can't defend his position (ironically he's not a bad post defender, but that creates different problems). Who literally has I believe back to back turnover record seasons. Who under-performs in the playoffs. In 87/88 Hakeem averaged 38/17/2 (assists)/2.3 (steals)/2.8 (blocks) in the playoffs. Granted it was a 3-1 series loss against the Mavs, with the one win Hakeem going off for 41/26... but it's a clearly dominant series where it's obvious, get htis guy more help. Granted, he had years where the scoring dipped, but still brought it. 88/89 was probably his worst playoff year, yet he averaged 5.8 bpg. Hakeem was an all around player -s o even when his offense was off, or even when he wasn't all there "mentally" as far as being a team first guy, he did all the other little things that results in wins. Lebron in his first stint with Cleveland is analogous to Hakeem. Harden is analogous to Melo.
If James Harden had played similarly in Game 6 to how he did in game 5(being aggressive offensively but not able to hit a boat in the ocean) and they still lost, I would've considered the season a success and felt like Harden sincerely had matured for good. However, Harden's performance in game 6 wasn't a case of being off that night. He didn't even try, quitting on his team and its fans in the process. If James Harden, after years in the NBA, can't figure out the importance of giving max effort in the playoffs, he isn't someone that will lead you to a championship unless he's pushed to a secondary role and held accountable at all times. Even worse, this wasn't the first time he had a "Don't Give a Damn" game in the playoffs. Do you not remember game 1 against the CP3 less clippers where Harden and the Rockets jacked around and lost a game to a team they should've blown out? The 13 turnover game vs Golden State, the blowout at home in a must win game 3 vs Golden State in the WCF and game 6 vs the Clippers in LA. Yeah, James Harden is a top 5 player and MVP caliber player when he wants to be. Problem is, he chooses to turn it on and off in the playoffs, when the lights get brightest.
Rose are red, Violets are blue, Bats are blind, And so is Will of the Clutch crew. Sorry, please don't ban me
