But they played together in the playoffs during crunch time with Westbrook playing more of a shooting guard and Harden running and setting up the offense. It's not like Brooks' offense was too complex for 3 players to exist. Those three loved to play together and they would have made it work. I don't think there was a Shaq/Kobe or KG/Marbury drama brewing. Harden might not have sniffed 25+ppg but he would have been at least a prime Manu. The decision is the same one GS was faced with last year with Thompson--sell high and get as many assets for him as you can or hold onto him and hope he turns into an All-Star. Presti/OKC did the former and got burned for it.
They could all play together and be effective and dominant. But, with all three of them there, one or more of them would not be able to maximize his contributions and would end up leaving much of his value on the shelf. We saw that's what was happening increasingly with Harden as a blooming franchise player stuck playing off the bench. Even as a starter, with only one ball to go around, he wouldn't be able to maximize his contributions. Ideally, you'd want to spread the talent around a little, and perhaps more of it down low or on defense or rebounding or somesuch. As it was they had a ton of redundant elite playmaking talent. And the career windows also were too redundant with everyone close to the same age. The plan to trade one of them for different kinds of assets was a good one. I just think the execution was bad. Harden's talent was perceptible but they were not really getting credit for it in the market because his contributions were hidden in their team structure. Westbrook's value, on the other hand, was transparent. One option they had was to trade Westbrook for something closer to his full value (for assets not fit for the starting backcourt -- like a good center and a good draft pick and cap relief) and allow Harden instead to take over as the go-to backcourt option. Reggie Jackson could have stepped into Westbrook's spot and probably would have maximized more of his potential too.
OKC was still very good that year. Presti could not have known Westbrook would get injured that year. They gambled and lost. Just like we let dragic go and sign lin and up to now, still looking for that pg to pair with harden
I don't think Harden was perceived as a top 10 caliber player. Heck, a large part of CF thought giving him a max contract was a risk. That was the problem. Harden coming off the bench was undervalued.
A point always seemed to be lost in this discussion is that Presti traded Harden a year before needed and even then he had many options since Harden would be a restricted free agent. That decision alone is what's really mind-boggling about Presti's logic. Sure, ownership told him to avoid paying luxury tax at all cost but that would be a year down the road when Harden would be extended. There was no immediate pressing need to make a trade in 2012. Even the selling high excuse fails since Harden had continuously improved each season in OKC and was bound for a breakout season soon.
He was a US Men's Olympic squad during his 3rd season in the league when Presti decided to bail - that's rarefied territory reserved generally only for superstars or future superstars. Bill Simmons (who as we know has written at length on this ad nauseum) put it best in one of his earlier columns on this - if you have a chance to have a superteam by assembling 3 top 10 caliber players (all under 25!), even if it's only for another you take it, regardless of what the long term consequences are. Play for a title when you have the chance. NBA Windows have a way shrinking and closing super fast, as Presti found out.
I think most of the bbs recognized at the time that going from Dragic to Lin was a downgrade, with most people assuming it was some combination of Dragic wanting too much, not wanting to return, or Les wanting a marketing piece for China. No one thought Lin was likely to match Dragic on performance, at least how I remember it. I'm not sure that's really a gamble so much as a mitigation strategy. I looked it up. In a BBS poll started in June before we traded for Harden, 52% said they didn't want Harden on the Rockets with a max contract: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=220689.
A centers most important job is defense, and they just gave huge money to the worst defensive center in the NBA. Regardless of what happened with Harden, this is a terrible signing. Presti has made one stupid move after another since having those 3 great drafts.
Who gives a sh-t what morons on the BBS thought? I used to think Harden wasn't that good back then, clouded by mostly a few bad games against the Heat in the finals. If Sam Presti used the NBA player evaluation of idiots like me, I have even less respect for him than I did previously. Harden was clearly deemed a superstar caliber player not just in hindsight but at the time. Presti willingly broke up the opportunity to have 3 superstar players at or entering their prime who had just been to the Finals, getting pennies on the dollar. That was a bad decision at the time, was subject to a great deal of criticism, and it looks catastrophic today.
