harden has always been more valuable. but that is beside the point. can you not understand this one simple point that the harden trade had NOTHING to do with the value of serge and harden, respectively.
Can't agree there. Pay Ibaka less and you can pay Harden more. Pay others less and you can pay Harden more. Every other contract on a team impacts your ability to pay someone else. And to be clear, I'm not saying they should have kept Harden over Ibaka. I think they should have paid them all.
Perfect examples of what though? The Thunder would have gladly kept Harden if they only had to pay him Ginobili type money. Also, Tony Parker has never made the type of money Westbrook is making. I don't believe the Spurs would have kept both Parker and Ginobili if the numbers were similar to what Westbrook is making and what Harden was asking. Presit wanted that trade kicker for a reason. He wasn't sure Harden was worth close to max money to the Thunder. Tying up $50MM of your cap space in 3 wing players is risky and he didn't want it to be even harder to move Harden if things didn't go right. It could have cost them in the long term. As far as chasing the title goes, waiting a year just isn't the same thing. Harden could have forced them into matching a max contract. It appears that Presti spoke to a lot of teams about Harden and he wasn't seen as an amazing trade piece on a max deal. There is also no way he could count on the Rockets offer being their 18 months later based on Morey's track record of moving pieces all the time.
Perfect examples of guys still being studs worth keeping even if they haven't blown up to full star status simply because they weren't a top option, even though it's clear that they could be. Yes, I realize Harden cost more to keep than those guys. Again, I don't care. If you have that type of young core you pay to keep it together. If the GM that had Harden for 3 seasons wasn't sure he was worth the max then he is not doing his job. If any GM should know Harden's value, it's Presti. And giving a trade kicker doesn't cost OKC squat. It only costs them if the kicker hinders their ability to trade Harden, which it would not have. This would have occured after the season. I have no doubts Presti could have received exactly what he got from us this offseason. The deal he received was not that great. You don't think the Suns would give up the #4 pick in this years draft for Harden at the max? They tried to sign Gordon at the max. The Wizards or Blazers (8th and 10th picks) wouldn't give up their picks in this draft for Harden? The prize asset he received is the 12th pick in this draft.
He has much more value to us and many other teams than he had to the Thunder. There was a higher level of redundancy of skills with him, Westbrook and Durant. Presti couldn't force other teams to place a higher value on Harden when it came to their teams. Why wouldn't it have? It would have made him more expensive for the team receiving him. Presti had already found out that teams weren't willing to give up a ton for Harden with such a high salary. He got the 12th pick plus Lamb who would possibly be a top 5 pick in this draft. He also got the Dallas pick that could turn into a future lottery pick. I don't think they beat the Heat even with Harden this year so I think getting Lamb/12th pick/Dallas pick is a much better deal than just a top 4-10 pick in this years draft.
This is not true. There was no redundancy with those 3. When they were on the court together the offensive numbers for OKC were off the charts. And we are not arguing about his value to OKC vs value to others. He was quite valuable to the Thunder. Teams weren't willing to give up a lot of assets back to get Harden (assets that we don't know the full details of). That doesn't translate into them not being willing to pay him a max salary. A trade kicker takes him to the maz range he would have opted out of to stay in OKC. Yes, teams would have no problem paying him the max. Like I said, not much. And based on how hard it's been from us to trade up into the top 5 of any draft without a stud being in the deal, I hihgly doubt Lamb and picks gets you from 12 to 5.
There was redundancy on defense for sure. Why wouldn't we be arguing his value to OKC vs others? Presti wants assets backs for Harden though. He wouldn't want to just dump him. With the trade kicker he has to find a team that is willing to pay him max money and give up good assets at the same time. Presti already saw last summer that not many teams were willing to do that. I believe it does in this draft. Lamb would probably be around the top 5 if he had come out this year.
It's no different than the redundancy when Martin closes games for them. They would have been a better team with Harden. I don't know why we are even debating that point. And I think he still could have gotten back assets this summer, and would have had no problem finding a team to give him max money. I definately feel that way after watching Eric Gordon get max money after missing almost an ebtire season. Agree to disagree.
If you want to prove your point, give some examples. Which teams were capable of sending assets to OKC and signing Harden to a max contract? Be realistic.
Disagree. In terms of skillsets, there's major overlap between Westbrook/Harden and a minor one between Harden/Durant. In the past, Durant wasn't really a playmaker, so those duties fell to Westbrook/Harden. However, this season, Durant has improved his game a lot, especially his ball-handling. He's a legitimate playmaker now. The Thunder didn't need 3 playmakers. Look at it this way...Westbrook mainly plays the 1 but can also play the 2. Durant mainly plays the 3, but can spend limited minutes at the 2 or 4. Harden primarily plays the 2, but can spend limited minutes at the 1. In that situation, b/c OKC already had Sefolosha, the logical thing to do was to trade Harden since he had great trade value and deserved a big contract.
I think we are debating different things. I am talking about in the long term not for just this year. Eric Gordon had proven that he could produce as a starter and the Suns weren't giving up anything to sign him last season. I don't think it's a good comparison at all but agree to disagree like you said.
I already gave one in Phoenix. They tried to sign Gordon to the max and I'm sure they would give their lotto pick in this years draft for a maxed out Harden.
Especially this year. The loss of Westbrook would be minimized if they still had Harden. They had him under contract until after this year -- why wouldn't you keep something like that together, even if you didn't intend on extending him? Keep Harden and you're back in the finals again. Instead, they got a one-year KMart rental, an okay prospect and a lottery pick in an awful draft. Nice work.
The Thunder might still be better off with Lamb, the picks and flexibility in the long run. Judging the move now is way too premature.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for James Harden to get a 5 year extension, that trade would've had to have been made by the Feb 2013 trade deadline, right? And if that's the case, why would OKC agree to trade Harden for Phoenix's draft pick when Harden could've turned that team around and made the draft pick an average one? If you're talking about Phoenix trading for Harden (assuming he's still on OKC) this coming offseason, why even bother? They could offer more money than OKC. Why not offer Harden the max themselves? And at that point, does OKC even have any leverage at all? Harden could take whichever offer he wanted, right?
I think they would have to match and try to move him later but I think Presti traded him partly because he didn't want to risk getting stuck in that situation.
