Being happy with the deal and believing he deserved a max contract is very different from believing he's a franchise type superstar. Plenty of second tier star deserve a max. And I am pretty sure most people here knew the trade on the Rockets side was a no-brainer even if Harden would turn out to be a Ginobili type 6th man. If half of the board thought he didn't deserve a max contract, that means they didn't think he was an all-star level player. That's a gross underrating on hindsight.
No matter how you slice it, it was a very bad decision by Clayton and Presti. You're not in this business to make money; you are in this business to win. I keep saying: Your Franchise license all by itself makes you money. You're going to make money when you sell. Until you do sell, you keep James Harden at all cost, because he's better and funner to watch than Perkins and Ibaka combined Besides, history will prove that Harden > Westbrook They should have traded Westbrook if someone must absolutely go.
Video: Could the Thunder have really kept James Harden? <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/S8uKE0tqu_E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is the same thing I have telling others. It wasn't just about the money. He wanted to start and not just be a bench player. I remember when he first came he had said that he had been watching and learning and thought he was ready. Ready for what? Well he wanted to start and show he was more than a 2nd teamer. He had shown all he was the best 6th man and if he stayed OKC said he was going to stay that way. He wanted to think about it and we all know now that Presti didn't wait but pulled the trade. Presti could have waited a day at least. Oh well he got Lamb anyway.
Not only are we lucky that Harden wanted to leave to become a starter, but we are very lucky that other teams passed on him like Washington and Golden State.
There are a lot of excuses this guy is giving: 1. They didn't know James Harden was this good - well too bad. YOUR JOB is to evaluate talent and make the right decision. He was on your team and in practice everyday, and you didnt know? And Morey somehow knew? 2. They (Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden) are not supposed to be this good this quick - this makes no sense. A superstar is a superstar, and they get max contracts on their second contract. Late bloomer superstars, the type that get max contracts on their third contract, are very rare. 3. No team ever had three wing superstars - true, but you just went from three superstars on the wing to two superstar on the wing. Which one is better? In the end, they chose money saving over championships, made strategic mistakes, and now trying to come up with justification for their doing. I have no problem if they say "we are a small market and have no money", but stop the justification nonsense. No, I'm not even getting into how rich Bennett and McClendon are, how unethical their businesses actions are, and what they've done to Seattle.
Why are they still saying Harden wanted to be the man and wanted max when he said he was happy with his role in OKC and just wanted a trade kicker?
You mean No-trade clause? He wasn't even eligible for NTC, you have to be 8th year vet and be 4 seasons with the same team to even be eligible for No-trade clause.
How about you see what Harden wanted first? Did he DEMAND the max? All I know is he said no to 4 years, 52mil ish. What was the max OKC could've offered? The 4 years, 60 million? That's 2 million a year-- every dollar counts and I agree. Just not at this area, not with your top 3 players. You pay them and nickle and dime heavily players 10-12, and then even 8-9, and then 4-7. You make a lesser offer for Ibaka, try 4 years and 42 million. You don't sign that extra scrub for a 1 year vet min deal, etc. Nickel and dime elsewhere, not for the Harden or Durants or Westbrooks of the league. If they re-signed Ibaka to a 4 year, 42 deal originally and signed Harden to a 4 year 60 million deal, and refused to sign one veteran minimum player every off-season would that be worth it?
Not sure why trading Harden suddenly makes them money over championships. First of all it's suicide to pay 20M to backup 6th guy. Secondly their mistake wasn't trading Harden, it was choosing WB/Ibaka over Harden, one of those guys had to go and Presti just chose the wrong guy to trade. That's his mistake, the Harden trade itself was solid for him, the asset package (cap savings, 20 ppg scorer in martin, a martin clone in the making in Lamb, lottery pick) is something that is comparable to superstar packages, and Harden wasn't seen as a superstar before, as evidenced by Wiz preferring Beal over him.
Especially when Ibaka has no offense and WB, while a star, plays a position with a lot of depth around the league. Westbrook for say, an average point guard and some picks and prospects, would have been better.
