How will History look back on the OKC Thunder

[LV Koopa]

How far are you extending this All-Star impact? Because talent and impact are two different things, and no he didn't have All-Star impact for the Thunder - his role wouldn't allow him to.

Um...yes it did. Harden was tops on the team in RAPM with all bench line ups, +KD/no Russ lineups, and +Russ/no KD lineups. His scoring, assist and rebounding rate were all star level. I don't know were you get this idea that "role" somehow diminishes or magnifies impact to the point his talent wasn't judged correctly. Like I said before -many, many people in betting circles had Harden pegged as an All Time Great scorer before the 2012 Finals even happened. His "role" wasn't hiding that. It's one of the reasons a lot of guys made big bucks betting vs San Antonio even when they had that 2-0 lead. Many believed Harden was the second best player in the series.

They didn't wrongly assume anything, when Harden left they were the best offensive team in the league with a top 5 defense. THEY WERE A CONTENDER during that season.

Because the rest of the players matter outside WB and Durant. You don't trade a star for pieces and act like that will fill a hole. You keep mentioning their ORTG and DRTG which is fine but doesn't tell the entire story considering the '12 and '13 seasons were different lengths and in the playoffs we're more concerned about ORTG vs a specific opponent than their ORTG vs the league. Secondly, the league has never worked like this because other teams can get better. I've seen you harping about OKC having too much perimeter talent and not an offensive 5 as if that even matters. If as you say OKC already has a top tier offense without an offensive 5 then why would they trade Harden for more perimeter players and not get an offensive 5? Either they fukked up royally in their execution but had the right idea, or they wrongly assumed Durant+Wb was enough to replace Harden's perimeter talent.

How exactly are they paying for it?

Regardless of what his potential was, he was never going to play to it on the Thunder. The version of Harden you see now was NEVER going to have the type of impact in OKC. As above, his role on the team would never allow him to. He'd just be at most a 18 ppg scorer who provided no defense and was another carrier of stopping the ball. Why pay max money when you can replace that type of production/impact with other pieces at a lower cost?

They are paying for it because they still have Perkins signed to contract when they could have kept Harden. Even ignoring the opportunity costs they've paid by signing Perkins, Harden on his current deal is one of the most valuable contracts in the league. OKC could have had an MVP level player, kept Ibaka, Durant and WB and be fine with any replacement level Center. Furthermore, they've had to flip Kevin Martin and Sefolosha out of the team and are counting on Jeremy Lamb and Andre Roberson to get it done. Reggie Jackson is also probably gone at the end of the year. OKC has been trying to get back to the Finals since that trade and while injuries are obviously a big culprit they've been doing things most smart teams try to avoid - pay 3 guys to do the job of 1. When WB and Durant went down no one that was a result of the Harden trade produced what he could have.

To the bolded - except, he was already close to that level. He may not have been an MVP level player but he was already having a clear star impact. Also, Harden was young and as a 22 year old producing All Star impact he was surely going to get better barring some major disaster. Whether he scores 18 ppg or 25 is irrelevant because PPG doesn't tell us how well he works as an offensive player. He was rocking a historical scoring rate playing with bench units vs starters. Just because YOU didn't know what this meant doesn't mean other people didn't. He was also playing good defense in this "role" - the big knock on Harden's defense came his second year in Houston, not while he was in OKC. He wasn't a ball stopper either. A big reason people raved over Harden centric lineups in OKC was because the offense was super charged when he was the PnR ballhandler

You pay "max money" (and it wasn't a super max anyway) because you're printing value off the contract, have 3 stars under 25, and just came out of the NBA Finals. You don't replace his production with other players because it's not a fair trade.

You can have James Harden who is already a known commodity at age 22, or Kevin Martin leaving his prime + young unknowns.

If either Martin or the unknowns don't work out you've lost value. You rarely trade for 3 players to do the job of 1 for this very reason.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You can't be BETTER than a team that went to the Finals unless you go to the Finals and win, period.

:Looks forward to "bu...bu...but they would have".:

If you can assume they would have won had Westbrook not gotten hurt, I can assume he doesnt' get hurt if Harden stays...see how silly this can get?

No that's not what I'm saying. I said they were a better team than the previous season. Obviously it wasn't automatic they were going to beat the Spurs again, again like I said, they'd need luck to be on their side and their improvement would have to outweigh the Spurs' improvement.

 

[FTBS]

No that's not what I'm saying. I said they were a better team than the previous season. Obviously it wasn't automatic they were going to beat the Spurs again, again like I said, they'd need luck to be on their side and their improvement would have to outweigh the Spurs' improvement.

They may or may not have been better but the point is they didn't prove it so you can't just keep touting what happened in the regular season as proof of superiority over a team that went to the Finals as if it's fact and proves a point.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Try to flip shyt because you can't refute what is being said brehs I guess we are done here.

You're stamping all through this thread with how they shouldn't have broken up a core that took them to the Finals, then in the next breath you're hanging your hat on the fact that they would've gone further in the playoffs if they still had Harden, when Westbrook went down, knowing all too well that regardless of what minimal amount of success they had after that point.... they still weren't going to make the Finals.

Throw gnuzae insults in glass houses brehs.

 

[King Poetic]

The Philadelphia eagles of the nba, especially if they Don't win a title

 

[itsyoung!!]

Getting rid of Harden was not that bad still in hind sight.. Brooks horrible coaching, riding with Perkins () and taking too long to develop possible great level talent like Jones and Lamb is what hurt this team..

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

They may or may not have been better but the point is they didn't prove it

They were a better team. They proved it over 82 games.

so you can't just keep touting what happened in the regular season as proof of superiority over a team that went to the Finals as if it's fact and proves a point.

What you're failing to see is that, just because they were better than the previous season, doesn't mean they were automatically going to go to the Finals. There's a lot of things out of the power that would have to go their way. They proved over 82 games that his impact was replaceable (while you're in here blowing the impact he had on the team out of proportion), no matter what you say those are the facts.

 

[FTBS]

You're stamping all through this thread with how they shouldn't have broken up a core that took them to the Finals, then in the next breath you're hanging your hat on the fact that they would've gone further in the playoffs if they still had Harden, when Westbrook went down, knowing all too well that regardless of what minimal amount of success they had after that point.... they still weren't going to make the Finals.

Throw gnuzae insults in glass houses brehs.

The team proved itself by going to the Finals and would have likely better off with 2 of the 3 key pieces the next year rather than just one. Where exactly is the contradiction there breh? Contradictory is saying you don't wanna have an overabundance on this hand and then saying "bu...bu...but injuries" that said overabundance would have addressed to some degree on the other.

 

[FTBS]

They were a better team. They proved it over 82 games.

What you're failing to see is that, just because they were better than the previous season, doesn't mean they were automatically going to go to the Finals. There's a lot of things out of the power that would have to go their way. They proved over 82 games that his impact was replaceable (while you're in here blowing the impact he had on the team out of proportion), no matter what you say those are the facts.

And I'll say for the last time that this cannot be put forth as fact until they do what they did with him, without him . No need to keep going in circles. I am sure that whatever you have to say has already been refuted in my previous posts. Carry on arguing by yourself if you like though.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The team proved itself by going to the Finals and would have likely better off with 2 of the 3 key pieces the next year rather than just one.

They still had three of the four pieces (Ibaka was more important to the overall success of the team). Better off in what sense? They replaced Harden's impact/production, and it allowed other players to step up and expand their games and it allowed Durant to take on more playmaking duties. They were flat out a better performing team on both sides of the court. For the last time, his impact was not only replaceable but the team improved after he left. We don't know if they would have improved to that degree with Harden still on the team, what we do know is they improved WITHOUT him on the team.

Where exactly is the contradiction there breh?

Overemphasizing the importance of going back to the Finals with the core group then in the next breath saying they would've gone further with Harden when Westbrook went down, only to not make the Finals.

Contradictory is saying you don't wanna have an overabundance on this hand and then saying "bu...bu...but injuries" that said overabundance would have addressed to some degree on the other.

No, I specifically said an overabundance of perimeter players on max contracts. As I said you don't work on the notion that you load up on star wing/backcourt players in case one of them goes down injured. And why are you taking what I said about injuries out of context?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

And I'll say for the last time that this cannot be put forth as fact until they do what they did with him, without him .

I can't believe you're this stupid.

. No need to keep going in circles. I am sure that whatever you have to say has already been refuted in my previous posts. Carry on arguing by yourself if you like though.

By refuting what I said, I'm assuming you mean you keep ignoring factual statements?

 

[blac_da_rappa]

Worst trade in NBA History

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Um...yes it did. Harden was tops on the team in RAPM with all bench line ups, +KD/no Russ lineups, and +Russ/no KD lineups..

I'm going to stop you right there. Do i even need to explain the flaws in a metric that has an infinite number of multicollinearity issues or even the fact that Harden made the second unit function and he played with one of KD or Westbrook against more second units than Westbrook and Durant did, where they played against more starting units than Harden played with one of KD or Westbrook?

His scoring, assist and rebounding rate were all star level.

No it wasn't. A certain amount of his damage was done against second units with less defensive attention than actual All-Stars. You can't possibly say he was providing impact at that level when he wasn't in a role to do so.

I don't know were you get this idea that "role" somehow diminishes or magnifies impact to the point his talent wasn't judged correctly. Like I said before -many, many people in betting circles had Harden pegged as an All Time Great scorer before the 2012 Finals even happened.

You're arguing something completely different now. First you're claiming he had All-Star impact on Thunder (which he didn't), now you're talking about his potential and talent. And no 'many people' weren't pegging him as an all time great scorer at the point. That is just nonsense.

His "role" wasn't hiding that. It's one of the reasons a lot of guys made big bucks betting vs San Antonio even when they had that 2-0 lead. Many believed Harden was the second best player in the series.

His role was restricting him from having All-Star impact, which he clearly didn't have. What's him being the second best player in the series have to do with anything?

Because the rest of the players matter outside WB and Durant. You don't trade a star for pieces and act like that will fill a hole. You keep mentioning their ORTG and DRTG which is fine but doesn't tell the entire story considering the '12 and '13 seasons were different lengths and in the playoffs we're more concerned about ORTG vs a specific opponent than their ORTG vs the league..

He was never gonna have max player impact/production on this team. His offensive production was replaceable and he didn't provide any defense, that doesn't warrant a max contract. There was only a 20 game difference and they had more success against pretty much every team, than they did in the previous season. They didn't lose a step when Harden left - 82 games with playoff-like situations and tough trips in their schedule is more than enough to make this claim.

Secondly, the league has never worked like this because other teams can get better. I've seen you harping about OKC having too much perimeter talent and not an offensive 5 as if that even matters. If as you say OKC already has a top tier offense without an offensive 5 then why would they trade Harden for more perimeter players and not get an offensive 5? Either they fukked up royally in their execution but had the right idea, or they wrongly assumed Durant+Wb was enough to replace Harden's perimeter talent..

No, my argument was they didn't need three perimeter players on max contracts, not that they have too much perimeter talent. They traded Harden for perimeter players to replace his production, that's why and hoped that three picks they received would go towards filling out their weaknesses - which is why they drafted Adams to TRY and fill the void there.

They didn't wrongly assume that Durant/Westbrook is enough elite perimeter production/impact - because they both are. It's what is built around them.

They are paying for it because they still have Perkins signed to contract when they could have kept Harden. Even ignoring the opportunity costs they've paid by signing Perkins, Harden on his current deal is one of the most valuable contracts in the league. OKC could have had an MVP level player, kept Ibaka, Durant and WB and be fine with any replacement level Center.

No, Harden would not be an MVP level player with the lack of minutes, touches and experiencing carrying a #1 offensive load on that team. It wouldn't be the most valuable contract, it wouldn't be anywhere near close because it would be a waste of money. You don't pay a 6th man max money when your PG and SF are on max money. It's nonsensical.

Furthermore, they've had to flip Kevin Martin and Sefolosha out of the team and are counting on Jeremy Lamb and Andre Roberson to get it done. Reggie Jackson is also probably gone at the end of the year. OKC has been trying to get back to the Finals since that trade and while injuries are obviously a big culprit they've been doing things most smart teams try to avoid - pay 3 guys to do the job of 1. When WB and Durant went down no one that was a result of the Harden trade produced what he could have..

Kevin Martin was a rental and there's no point mentioning Thabo. And the didn't pay three guys to do the job of 1, Martin picked up the scoring slack and everybody increased their playmaking duties; which helped the team grow and spread the load - in turn moving the ball more.

Look at all the top 10 players in the league, if you were to remove them from their teams -there'd be no one to replace their production too. You can't work like that in this league, you'll never have success. You can't afford to have a security blanket at that price.

To the bolded - except, he was already close to that level. He may not have been an MVP level player but he was already having a clear star impact. Also, Harden was young and as a 22 year old producing All Star impact he was surely going to get better barring some major disaster.

No he wasn't, you're miscalculating his impact.

Whether he scores 18 ppg or 25 is irrelevant because PPG doesn't tell us how well he works as an offensive player. He was rocking a historical scoring rate playing with bench units vs starters. Just because YOU didn't know what this meant doesn't mean other people didn't.

Actually it is relevant, we aren't talking about somebody like Bosh, whose PPG dropped playing with Wade and Bron, because he played against starting front courts pretty much every minute he was out there and he was their defensive anchor. And how often did Harden play with the bench (without KD/Russ) against starters?

There wasn't 'many people' saying he was going to be an all time great scorer prior to the 2012 Finals. One or two people you know doesn't equal many people.

He was also playing good defense in this "role" - the big knock on Harden's defense came his second year in Houston, not while he was in OKC. He wasn't a ball stopper either. A big reason people raved over Harden centric lineups in OKC was because the offense was super charged when he was the PnR ballhandler.

He didn't play good defense in his role, he was a bad defender, he held his own in the post but awful on rotations, ball-watched and he regularly let his opposite drive by him. Half the reason why he was brought off the bench because his defense was that bad. He did stop the ball, Westbrook and Durant both did too - because all three of them were competing for touches. They had a bottom three pass-rate in the league that season.

You pay "max money" (and it wasn't a super max anyway) because you're printing value off the contract, have 3 stars under 25, and just came out of the NBA Finals. You don't replace his production with other players because it's not a fair trade.

You can have James Harden who is already a known commodity at age 22, or Kevin Martin leaving his prime + young unknowns.

If either Martin or the unknowns don't work out you've lost value. You rarely trade for 3 players to do the job of 1 for this very reason.

I've already made my point clear all throughout this thread (argument is getting quite tedious), so unless you have something new to add there's really not much more we can talk about.

 

[who_better_than_me]

A Beard away from the chip

...low-key, I feel its the Ghost of Supersonic what's stopping them from being GOAT

The sonicw werent known as chokers or a underachieving franchise....

 

[blac_da_rappa]

Get it done Presti

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=q56wxfz