[Heck Yes or Hell Nah] Would you trade Harden to Boston for its picks/players?

Hell yeah I'd do that trade. Every damn day. That's incredible value. Quite the haul for 1 player. When your whole team is expendable except for 1 guy it means your team sucks and you should probably trade "that 1 guy" as well since he's the only one that's gonna return value. If we don't sign a major FA this year and or get at least 2 border line stars/ impact players in addition to good role players we are going to be in the same position as always and fighting for the last few spots of the playoffs. We have a ton of holes to fill.

Thomas is a legit All Star PG. He also has one of the most cap friendly contracts for 2 more years.

Crowder is better than any of the trash we have at the 3 spot (Ariza, Brewer, KJ)

Draft Buddy Hield with the 3rd pick and hope he pans out. I personally think he will. Many may disagree but I think there's a good chance he becomes a star or maybe even an Allstar in a few years. It doesn't have to be Hield either just my preference but as long as we can hit the right player we're good.

Out of the 3 other picks if we can hit on at least 1 we will be golden. Get 2 out of the 3 right and you're really winning. If Golden State has shown anything these playoffs without Curry its that you can NOT rely upon 1 single guy. You need talent at multiple spots. Preferably good young talent. This move gives us that opportunity.

This moves also mitigates the risk of losing Harden for nothing down the road in free agency or losing him to injury. Like I said outside of a free agency home run signing or other trade miracle this offseason while keeping Harden we are not going to be contenders or anywhere close.

 

For what? Royce white???

 

Because Iverson's teams went on to have so much success after he left Philly right? Also, Harden is not a Top 5 player. More like top 10. We're talking about A guy that plays one side of the ball and dominates the ball and is such a liability defensively to the point where we have to think way too hard whether a potential new incoming player would be a good fit next to him or not.

Do you think Denver was sad to see Melo go? Maybe a little? Maybe not? Harden is closer to Melo than a LeBron or prime Wade. You don't trade true superstars like that. Melo you can let go and be okay.

 

Nah, you don't trade a player of hardens talent when he's entering his prime. In the next few years, there are some really good free agents available that might be willing to team up with harden.

The plan should be to try to sign one of them, and if that fails just start tanking and asset collecting in 2018.

 

It is way more than ZERO/B], which is your current sample size, though really it is 5.

I didn't "flat out dismiss" it - I looked at a data set to test your theory's validity. There's a lot of other countervailing data points as well (the Warriors, as has been pointed out to you by others, miss tons of three point shots yet surrender very few fast break points).

I'm not John Nash doing advanced math. I'm just trying with the available tools to see if data supports/refutes what you're saying.

There's an intuitive theory that "lots of missed 3's lead to fast breaks becuase of "basic physics" - There's also an intuitive theory that "lots of missed 3's lead to offensive rebounds" because of "basic physics" like you said before (the ball rebounds further, denying hte defense's best rebounders the benefit of inside positon under the hoop).

There's yet another intuitive theory (the good thing about intutive theories, is that you can pretty much just make them up) that is that "A missed 3 leads to better transition defense" (the time between the shot's launch and the eventual defensive rebound gives the offense more time to start heading back towards the goal).

Feel free to poke around the data- which is available in spades these days - to figure it out - or else just keep inveighing like a fool that what you believe must be true, without regard to facts - aka the Trump approach.

This is just a microcosm of the bogusness that people spew about Harden/the Rockets - the "pound the air out of the ball" myth that aelliott has shown to be definitively fraudulent (thouth that one I could tell was not true by the old fashioned "eye" test), the "Beverley is a terrible three point shooter" myth, and the "Rockets offense is the problem" myth. The Rockets' generally terrible season causes peopel to fixate on things and ascribe causation, but like I said before, it's great these days that we can validate those attributions and don't have to rely on newspaper columnists or talking head morons to validate them for us with their own "eye tests".

 

Nope. You only gave those 5 game logs as evidence which would suggest that if I could conjure up 5 games out of the 82 game season where Harden's turnovers and missed 3pters lead up to a significant amount of transition buckets for the opponent then my 'evidence' would be JUST AS VALID as your 'evidence'. Do you honestly believe that I couldn't find five games this season where Harden's missed threes and turnovers lead to a significant amount of easy pts for the opponent? The only question is what constitutes 'significant'. I'll even let you come up with the criterion for 'significant' in this sense. You have to give me 2 weeks since I'm in finals crunch mode so I don't have time to rummage through a bunch of box scores and tally up numbers.

And you completely ignored my argument about the narrow definition of what 'constitutes' a fast break with these box scores because an 'easier opportunity' for the opponent doesn't always mean the textbook definition of 'fastbreak'. There could be plenty of situations where a long rebound from a missed three didn't result in a direct fastbreak but instead it resulted in a situation where the Rocket's defense wasn't completely set which allowed maybe an easy back door pass or lob or any easy type bucket which would not show up on the box score as a transition bucket. Your paradigm completely removes the butterfly affect.

The only way to observe the butterfly affect is through actual observations fro watching the game. Allieot's arguments based on pure analytical data do not compensate for the butterfly affect which is why analytical analysis of basketball isn't a 100% fail proof analysis that coincides with actual reality. The eye test has validity.

 

OK - I'll be waiting when you tally up the numbers. Looking forward to it.

Go back and read the post - I used a video box score - I watched every single play, and if it even seemed like half-way a transition opportunity I gave it to them.

A shot that comes 10 seconds into the shot clock, with all 5 players back, is not a transition opportunity - sorry, you're just wrong if that's the tack you plan on taking when you start tallying the numbers.

It uses a reasonable definition of causation that our whole legal system and a lot of science is built on - new intervening acts are attributed with a higher degree of causation, and consequences that are not as foreseeable are not attributed to actions than foreseeable ones.

I admire your preemptive effort to clear the decks for when the data comes back working against you. You sound very confident.

 

Only if we have RC Buford and Popovich doing the 1st round picks for us!

 

You still used five games. Are you seriously suggesting that there were not 5 games this season where Harden's bricked threes and turnovers didn't result in easy opportunities for the opponent? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because if there are 5 games that do suggest that then my evidence is as valid as yours.

And yes, a text book definition of 'fastbreak' that is tallied in a box score is not the only way an opponent can have an 'easy opportunity'. Honestly, I didn't watch any of those videos and your suggestion of what constitutes as 'easy buckets' is subjective just like mine. A long rebound from a bricked three pointer can result in incorrect assignments because the defense has to rush to the nearest opponent instead of having the luxury of taking the time to go over to the correct assignment. I'm quite confident that you didn't take any of that into consideration when you analyzed your videos. For all you know, those five game you chose, the opponent didn't take great advantage of Harden's bricked threes and turnovers. I mean... it's still five games. I'm quite confident I could find 5 games where Harden's massive amounts of bricked threes resulted in easy buckets for the opponent.

 

This is the worst thread I've came across in a minute.

 

OK - I'll be waiting when you tally up the numbers. Looking forward to it.

 

Before I do, are you actually suggesting that I won't be able to find 5 games where Harden's missed threes and turnovers resulted in a significant amount of easy opportunities for the opponent? I mean, even in your best case scenario where Harden's bricked threes and turnovers doesn't lead to easier opportunities for the opponent, outliers still exist just from a result of an 82 game season. I'm sure I could find ultra efficient pgs like Chris Paul and find FIVE games of an 82 game season where his missed shots and turnovers led to a significant amount of easy opportunities for the opponent because 5 games is 5 games.

 

Nope.

 

Repped.

I agree completely. Harden isn't worth that much and I seriously doubt that much would be offered for him.

I would take that and run. Rockets fans are delusional about Harden's current value. He was exposed this year.

 

I don't think Boston has any interest in giving up a guy in Isiah Thomas who carried his team to the playoffs along with 3 1st round picks..this just seems unrealistic tbh.

 

No. Stacking a bunch of late first rounders on the scales doesn't actually tip them much when you're talking about players with the importance of Harden. Most #16 picks turn into Luke Babbitt.

What we're really talking about is Harden for Thomas, a top five pick, and minor sweeteners. So no.

 

Les has taught Rockets fans to be as impatient as him, and that's why we end up 1st round exits for the past 20 years.

Every team that is contending right now built their main pieces in the the NBA draft-mostly lottery.

Who ever said trading Harden for the #1 pick was supposed to get us back into contention right away? The point is building your future championship team through stellar drafting. How do you think we won the championship before? By signing stars?
It took us nearly a decade after drafting back to back #1 picks. We probably would have won sooner had Sampson not had bum knees, but it was that other #1 pick that would be the main piece to our back to back championship roster that was built around. Robert Horry #11 pick. Sam Cassell #24 pick helped our former lottery pick signings- Kenny Smith #6 and Otis Thorpe #9 become the title team. Maxwell(rnd 2) and Ellie (rnd 7) were hidden gems Morey is pretty good at finding, ie Beverly, Parsons.

I find without Durant coming, there is 0% chance Harden resigns with the Rockets in 2018. LA is his home and Lakers should have enough money for him and it's the best place to build his brand. Come 2018 we will be sitting here with our D's in our hands wondering what happened, when all the signs had always been there that he was an LA man through and through and the smart posters with patience and vision, knew to trade him while we had the chance.

 

Morey's goal is to build a team with 3 superstars. Trading away the only superstar on the roster for 0 superstars in return is NOT how you accomplish that goal.

 

Ofc he is worth that much and even more. This is a lowball offer if anything.

The no. of assets doesnt matter what matters is the quality of them. And almost all of the picks (possibly the no.3-6 included) are not good quality since this draft is very weak.
An offer of just two assets: i.e Noel+ no.1 pick is much better than this offer.
Or Booker + no.4 pick.
Still I wouldnt do those trades but they at least can offer pieces with star potential.

Dont forget that thomas expires the same time as Harden does.

 

You don't trade an all-star with two years left on his deal for draft picks and role players.