81 replies to this topic

[phaketrash]

OKC traded away Harden because it's hard to pay max money to a player that, even though has starter minutes, is playing as a 6th man, kind of what we were talking about a good reason for not pulling the trigger on Gordon. We all agreed that Ibaka was more necessary to them than Harden, mainly because of what he provides on the other side of the ball. So...I don't think they are regreting the trade, maybe they are thinking they could have gotten a lot more knowing what they know now about Harden.

 

When you say "max money," it sounds terrifying, but Harden is so young that a 4 yr contract at max would not be debilitating (if they amnestied Perkins for example). Heck, Harden wasn't even asking for a max 4 yr, but something shy of it. Either way, for four yrs, he'd be making less than Ginobili does now, playing a similar role.

[rockets best fan]

I heard it was OKC that made the offer of Harden for Beal and Singleton, and the Wizards were the ones who foolishly turned it down.

beal.......I like this guy and I agree OKC was foolish not to jump on this trade

[phaketrash]

I don't think OKC regret the trade, they have done well without Harden. No discussion that Harden is the superior player but OKC got a perfect 6th man who doesn't need the ball in his hands basically giving Durant and Westbrook more of the ball. Signing Ibaka was the right decision because he provides defence same with Perkins. You can't pay max and use him as a 6th man. OKC has no problem scoring so they had to shore up defence, and Martin has done a great job.

 

This is one of the rare cases where both teams benefited. We got a superstar they got cap space and a young player and a draft pick.

 

While OKC made out okay in the deal, I am pretty sure that it was made for financial reasons. I am almost entirely sure haha. If money were not the issue, Harden would not be moved, so in no way did OKC "get better" moving Harden. They just more or less had to, or had to make some move w/ some player.

 

Signing Ibaka was definitely the right thing to do, but again, OKC traded a greater chance of winning now (say this season and the next couple) for being "in contention" many more yrs down the road. A nice draft pick, a nice young prospect...they're shoring up for the long haul.

 

From an owner's point of view, in a smaller market, this is the only move that makes sense. Winning a championship might not bring much more $ to the bottomline, but competing for one for many more yrs, even if you have a lower chance of obtaining it each attempt, could net you a lot more $ when all is said and done. OKC fans already always coming out to support the team, so being in contention is enough. If OKC's owner cared more about winning now (this yr to next 2 yrs), he would have just paid a bit more cash out of pocket and had a greater chance at a title. He didn't because he apparently values x dollars over y yrs of contention more than the z dollars and v intrinsic value he gains from winning a championship. That's fine; worked out for us! 

[thenit]

When you say "max money," it sounds terrifying, but Harden is so young that a 4 yr contract at max would not be debilitating (if they amnestied Perkins for example). Heck, Harden wasn't even asking for a max 4 yr, but something shy of it. Either way, for four yrs, he'd be making less than Ginobili does now, playing a similar role.

 

Well with the contract they would have paid Harden, they would have gone way over the cap and the luxury tax is so punitive that his salary would have been too much for a fairly small market team. Lin is no Harden but that was why Knicks didn't want to swallow the poison pill where Lins salarey the last year would have cost Knicks close to 40 millions according to estimates. That would be the same for OKC in the 3rd and 4th year.

[phaketrash]

beal.......I like this guy and I agree OKC was foolish not to jump on this trade

 

Wait, OKC wanted Beal. Wiz turned them down -- how is that OKC being foolish?

[phaketrash]

Well with the contract they would have paid Harden, they would have gone way over the cap and the luxury tax is so punitive that his salary would have been too much for a fairly small market team. Lin is no Harden but that was why Knicks didn't want to swallow the poison pill where Lins salarey the last year would have cost Knicks close to 40 millions according to estimates. That would be the same for OKC in the 3rd and 4th year.

 

No, but they could have moved Perkins or amnestied him. Then they would not be over the tax.

[thenit]

While OKC made out okay in the deal, I am pretty sure that it was a financial one. I am almost entirely sure haha. If money were not the issue, Harden would not be moved, so in no way did OKC "get better" moving Harden. They just more or less had to, or had to make some move w/ some player.

 

Signing Ibaka was definitely the right thing to do, but again, OKC traded a greater chance of winning now (say this season and the next couple) for being "in contention" many more yrs down the road. A nice draft pick, a nice young prospect...they're shoring up for the long haul.

 

From an owner's point of view, in a smaller market, this is the only move that makes sense. Winning a championship might not bring much more $ to the bottomline, but competing for one for many more yrs, even if you have a lower chance of obtaining it each attempt, could net you a lot more $ when all is said and done. OKC fans already always coming out to support the team, so being in contention is enough. If OKC's owner cared more about winning now (this yr to next 2 yrs), he would have just paid a bit more cash out of pocket and had a greater chance at a title. He didn't because he apparently values x dollars over y yrs of contention more than the z dollars and v intrinsic value he gains from winning a championship. That's fine; worked out for us! 

 

Its about financial reason, but OKC is scoring 2 more points per game with that team compared to the team with Harden. Martin is a better fit and look at Westbrook, his assists are up as well as KD. Kmart has 14 ppg and harden had 17 last year. So they made the right decision, and we also got a great deal. So it was a win win.

 

And like you say winning a championship wouldn't have been a profitable with Harden signing a near max contract because the cost is more, thats the bottom line for most owners in a small market. Unless you are a lakers or Knicks its hard to go over the luxury task and basically pay 40+ more to keep harden. Only player that is worth that is LBJ. But even then its hard to justify that kind of money in a cap league,

[thenit]

They are 10 million over the cap this year, without Harden, and Harden's contract would be larger thatn Perkins. Also the luxury tax penalties get more punitive for repeat offenders so it would have been to costly.

[Rahat Huq]

I don't think amnestying or trading Perkins were viable options, but I do think they would have been better off just trading Westbrook rather than Harden, especially when considering that Westbrook was more highly regarded and would have brought back a better haul.  

 

Having said all this, it's absolutely insane to think that that franchise had, in its posession, 3 of the best 10 players in basketball, and all were under the age of 24, to go along with wherever Ibaka was ranked.  Just unreal.  Were it not for a restrictive salary cap, they would have been able to keep them with the great irony being that OKC is one of the smallest of markets.  An unprecedented accumulation of young talent in the modern era.

[phaketrash]

I don't think amnestying or trading Perkins were viable options, but I do think they would have been better off just trading Westbrook rather than Harden, especially when considering that Westbrook was more highly regarded and would have brought back a better haul.  

 

Having said all this, it's absolutely insane to think that that franchise had, in its posession, 3 of the best 10 players in basketball, and all were under the age of 24, to go along with wherever Ibaka was ranked.  Just unreal.  Were it not for a restrictive salary cap, they would have been able to keep them with the great irony being that OKC is one of the smallest of markets.  An unprecedented accumulation of young talent in the modern era.

 

I can see why moving Perkins is very difficult, but why couldn't they amnesty him?

[phaketrash]

They are 10 million over the cap this year, without Harden, and Harden's contract would be larger thatn Perkins. Also the luxury tax penalties get more punitive for repeat offenders so it would have been to costly.

 

Right...but if you move Perkins, you'd be fine. Remember, they moved Cook and Hayward and Aldrich to us, and those were expirings. That would come off the books next yr as well. Even if we pretend Harden wanted a full max from OKC, they would actually still end up about exactly where they are this yr -- about $10M over the cap, but NOT in the luxury tax zone. They would not have even been in luxury tax once yet, much less repeating it.

[Mason Khamvilay]

Even now their future is still unreal, with Lamb who could be a top 10 SG one day, and that draft pick could be Rudy Gobert. Even though Harden is amazing player, I think OKC could actually be much better off if Lamb and Gobert pan out because they will be more balanced.

 

Still, I would have done it differently if it was possible to amnesty Perkins. I would have traded Westbrook and got a bigger haul.

[phaketrash]

Its about financial reason, but OKC is scoring 2 more points per game with that team compared to the team with Harden. Martin is a better fit and look at Westbrook, his assists are up as well as KD. Kmart has 14 ppg and harden had 17 last year. So they made the right decision, and we also got a great deal. So it was a win win.

 

And like you say winning a championship wouldn't have been a profitable with Harden signing a near max contract because the cost is more, thats the bottom line for most owners in a small market. Unless you are a lakers or Knicks its hard to go over the luxury task and basically pay 40+ more to keep harden. Only player that is worth that is LBJ. But even then its hard to justify that kind of money in a cap league,

 

Unfortunately, that does not prove much. Everyone knew Westbrook and Durant were going to get better. You yourself admit that Westbrook and KD are doing better. Who is to say that if they had kept Harden, they would not be scoring 5 more points per game? Martin is not a better fit -- he is a good fit, but Harden could have fulfilled Martin's role while also being the playmaker off the bench, which was really what made him special. Martin can't help make plays, and they aren't setting him up w/ the starting lineup anyways. 

 

Whether they made the right decision or not based on their financial constraints is one thing. To say their team got better from the deal, SETTING ASIDE FINANCIAL CONCERNS, is just wholly inaccurate. Ask anyone, if money were not the issue, would they make the same deal w/ Houston again? 10 times out of 10 the answer is no.

[phaketrash]

Basketball fans seem to all be obsessed w/ potential and low payoff odds lol. Please realize just how rare it is for the payout to actually occur. You guys all sound like you'd be interested in law school or something

[Mason Khamvilay]

Good point. I just try to see things from every perspective.

[ale11]

OKC needs more defense (Ibaka and Perkins), not more offense, period. Trading Harden ir order to keep Ibaka and mantain Perkins made sense financially, but given that state, is more important to have top defenders to compete against the Heat rather than an overload on the offense (which by the way, Harden pretty much sucked in the Finals). Like phaketrash said, Martin is not a better fit, just a good fit, who can provide most of the things Harden did, they have two stars already, they don't need another playmaker who needs the ball playing alongside someone who won't give it to him. Money aside, Harden didn't want to play 6th man role anymore, he wanted to be "the man", not "the third guy" on a roster.

[PKM]

From what I remember, Harden wasn't even asking for a max.  He just wanted a trade kicker because he had no way of guaranteeing that even if he gave up money, minutes, and a starring role to OKC, that OKC wouldn't just stab him in the back and dump him down to Phoenix or whomever in the future whenever they wanted someone else.  The Thunder said no, which says something about where their priorities are  Now, Harden's on a team where the only scenario where he's being dumped off is if Pat Riley has a brain aneurysm tomorrow.

[phaketrash]

OKC needs more defense (Ibaka and Perkins), not more offense, period. Trading Harden ir order to keep Ibaka and mantain Perkins made sense financially, but given that state, is more important to have top defenders to compete against the Heat rather than an overload on the offense (which by the way, Harden pretty much sucked in the Finals). Like phaketrash said, Martin is not a better fit, just a good fit, who can provide most of the things Harden did, they have two stars already, they don't need another playmaker who needs the ball playing alongside someone who won't give it to him. Money aside, Harden didn't want to play 6th man role anymore, he wanted to be "the man", not "the third guy" on a roster.

 

Actually, from what Harden seemed to be willing to do (see PKM's post) and Harden's own comments, he would have been more than happy to play the 6th man role on that team. And I think they absolutely need a player who can be a playmaker off the bench. It would make them one of (if not THE) deadliest benches in the nba. Harden did poorly in parts of the playoffs, but he was only what, 22? 23? 

 

First, I think Harden would be able to bring more defense as the 6th man since his energy is conserved and he wouldn't need to put up 26 a night or something. Second, Perkins is the solution then? Trading Harden in order to keep Perkins just sounds perverse when I say it out loud lol.

[thejohnnygold]

If memory serves, Perkins is (was) regarded as a "Dwight-buster".  OKC has him to throw at Dwight and Sefolosha for Lebron/Wade.  Other than that I don't think any one player scares them very much.

 

Not saying it justifies anything, but it might shed some light...

[phaketrash]

If memory serves, Perkins is (was) regarded as a "Dwight-buster".  OKC has him to throw at Dwight and Sefolosha for Lebron/Wade.  Other than that I don't think any one player scares them very much.

 

Not saying it justifies anything, but it might shed some light...

 

No, I remember hearing that as well, which just ups Perk's value to them by some amount so that his total is not near zero lol.