How will History look back on the OKC Thunder

[USSInsiders]

Its Brooks. His inability to implement a cohesive offensive system or run even the simplest plays like KD/Russ pnr (which would be unstoppable) consistently has stunted this squad. Him turning a beast of a man like Ibaka into African Donnell Marshall is just pathetic. And also his refusal to develop young players like Lamb, Jones, etc is also the downfall

goddamn.

People pretty much hit it n/h. Brooks is a fukking retard that still has them playing iso-ball. Talent alone this squad is on another level but the coaching has been straight up fukking retarded

 

[USSInsiders]

I don't get why people are on Harden's dikk n/h. Him being there wouldn't make Brooks any less retarded or add more glue to Westbrick's fukked up knees

 

[JetLife]

It all boils down to this guy ...

- Continued to start Kendrick Perkins until recently AND STILL gives him minutes
- Turned Ibaka into a face up jump shooter, seemingly to spread the floor for Russ/Durant. Yet, always leaves a lumbering center in there like Ibaka/Adams, thus clogging up the lane anyways
- Obsessed with the "defensive" 2 in Sefalosha/Roberson, when in reality this should be a super scorer position since Russy can cross-match and cover a 2 and this guy can take a weak PG.
- Russ/Durant still have no "money-play" system, their go-to moves are ISO shots or drives.

Watching the success of the Spurs system in ATL/GSW, the true mark of a coach isn't how he develops stars ... Durant/Westbrook/Curry etc. will get theirs no matter who the coach is ... it's how you develop and put role players in a position to succeed. E.g. Spurs making Mills/Belinelli absolute dagger shooters. Korver's 50/50/90 slash lines in ATL. Kerr turning around Barnes' career and making Mo Speights a usable player.

Meanwhile, what has this guy done for his role players? Anthony Morrow's shooting a career low in 3pt % when he should be draining at a Korver like pace on this roster. Harrison Barnes' robotic shot is shooting 3's at a better clip than Anthony Morrow who's basically built to drain the kick out 3 ...

 

[duckbutta]

None of this shyt makes sense.

It would require an understanding of lineup rotations, something which you clearly have no sense of.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

How do you know they weren't gonna get more? There didn't have to trade him then.

They didn't have to, but they ran the risk of getting something considerably less through a S&T, when his value was basically going to drop from then on.

How many players in the last five seasons have netted a team a 20-point-caliber scorer (rental), lottery-pick player, two first-round picks (if Memphis didn't trade Gay to Toronto - McLemore potentially would be in OKC) and a second-round pick through a trade when they were a free agent?

Really no way to say what couldn't have happened if they had kept him. Fact remains he got a max offer, so he had to have some value.

Yeah to the Rockets. That doesn't mean every other team viewed him as a player that was worthy of giving a max contract to. Wizards turned down a trade for him and the Warriors turned down a trade for him.

That fact that teams sign guys that haven't proven anything all the time only supports my stance that they could've gotten a better package.

No it doesn't, it's actually quite the opposite. Go through that season(s) and find me a team that could've given the Thunder a better package, and were a realistic possibility of signing him to a max contract i.e. teams that had the assets and were in need of taking a chance on a wing player. Plus we're talking about Morey here, he's not the best example to use as a barometer for what they rest of the league would do. This is the same dude that:

signed Lin to a $25m/3-year contract and looked how that turned out
signed Asik to a $25m/3-year contract and looked how that turned out

Morey hit 1 out of 3 in that run and look at all the contracts he's given out in that time and all players he's let go, only to try and pursue them again.

It's not about exceeding that it's about getting a better fit/more long term fix.

And what wing player was out there at an affordable price they could've been a better fit in the long term + along with assets equal to what Houston gave?

You keep neglecting to mention that said 20 ppg scorer was a perimeter player and only had one year left and was gone after that year and wasn't as good as Harden to begin with. Might well had kept Harden another year and let him go. Still would've had the option to trade him since he was gonna be restricted. Rockets prolly woulda still been tryna to get him then.

They were going to trade him regardless, he was never going to stay in OKC. But it would've come to the point where the Rockets wouldn't have traded as many assets as they originally did. And why keep him for another year when it was inevitable he was going to leave, when they could've started building for the future and taken a chance on Lamb developing and getting two first-round picks?

Keeping Harden (until the following summer) just would've set them back another season.

They didn't even need a 20 ppg post player, a quality post threat that keeps defenses honest and/or helps protect the rim would've done. Wasn't Jefferson available around that time? The Bulls stay having a glut of big dudes. Look what the Pelican got Asik for. Probably coulda got Pau from LA.

I don't know if Jefferson would have been a good fit for this team, given the coaching and the pace, and the fact that the crossover period of O'Connor/Lindsey where they wouldn't have parted with any first-round picks or building talent. Asik? He was never an option and is basically a 7-ft version of Perkins. Pau wouldn't work at the time given his salary.

Don't get me wrong, they were in need of a low-block post player (they still are), however the package they got from Houston purely from an asset/base standpoint wouldn't have been matched by any other team. This is not even taking into account if they went down the 'post-player for Harden' route, that a player like Jefferson or Lopez - there'd be the possibility they wouldn't be utilized properly and not get enough appropriate touches to make a game-changing difference, given that all their 'problems' stem from coaching, not necessarily from a lack of talent.

 

[FTBS]

They didn't have to, but they ran the risk of getting something considerably less through a S&T, when his value was basically going to drop from then on.

How many players in the last five seasons have netted a team a 20-point-caliber scorer (rental), lottery-pick player, two first-round picks (if Memphis didn't trade Gay to Toronto - McLemore potentially would be in OKC) and a second-round pick through a trade when they were a free agent?

Yeah to the Rockets. That doesn't mean every other team viewed him as a player that was worthy of giving a max contract to. Wizards turned down a trade for him and the Warriors turned down a trade for him.

No it doesn't, it's actually quite the opposite. Go through that season(s) and find me a team that could've given the Thunder a better package, and were a realistic possibility of signing him to a max contract i.e. teams that had the assets and were in need of taking a chance on a wing player. Plus we're talking about Morey here, he's not the best example to use as a barometer for what they rest of the league would do. This is the same dude that:

signed Lin to a $25m/3-year contract and looked how that turned out
signed Asik to a $25m/3-year contract and looked how that turned out

Morey hit 1 out of 3 in that run and look at all the contracts he's given out in that time and all players he's let go, only to try and pursue them again.

And what wing player was out there at an affordable price they could've been a better fit in the long term + along with assets equal to what Houston gave?

They were going to trade him regardless, he was never going to stay in OKC. But it would've come to the point where the Rockets wouldn't have traded as many assets as they originally did. And why keep him for another year when it was inevitable he was going to leave, when they could've started building for the future and taken a chance on Lamb developing and getting two first-round picks?

Keeping Harden (until the following summer) just would've set them back another season.


I don't know if Jefferson would have been a good fit for this team, given the coaching and the pace, and the fact that the crossover period of O'Connor/Lindsey where they wouldn't have parted with any first-round picks or building talent. Asik? He was never an option and is basically a 7-ft version of Perkins. Pau wouldn't work at the time given his salary.

Don't get me wrong, they were in need of a low-block post player (they still are), however the package they got from Houston purely from an asset/base standpoint wouldn't have been matched by any other team. This is not even taking into account if they went down the 'post-player for Harden' route, that a player like Jefferson or Lopez - there'd be the possibility they wouldn't be utilized properly and not get enough appropriate touches to make a game-changing difference, given that all their 'problems' stem from coaching, not necessarily from a lack of talent.

His value wasn't gonna drop unless he got hurt. nikka wasn't gonna forget how to play or dog it in a contract year. You keep listing what they got out of the trade as if any of it has done them any good. Coulda woulda shoulda draft picks and the top scorer on a shytty team that can't really do much else isn't a great haul when you didn't have to trade dude and you are trying to win championships. We aren't talking about some team that was trying to find it's way. We talking about a team that got through the superior conference to the Finals and was right there with the eventual champs. There is no reason to rush change there. You either keep him, get what you need for him, or trade him at the last minute and get a comparable haul. You don't trade him with a year out for that. There are 30 teams in the league and half of them have no idea what they are doing. There is always a sucker...always. He had no choice but to work on their timetable as he was restricted. I'd rather take the chance with the possibility that a big won't be used right than trade a perimeter guy with potential for an older perimeter guy with less potential and a bunch of maybe's when we were already on the cusp of a title .

 

[Buckeye Fever]

Having Harden didnt make much of a difference in the finals vs Miami.

Dont know why ppl think it's a given they'd be a title team

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

It would require an understanding of lineup rotations, something which you clearly have no sense of.

says the dude that doesn't even know the lineups of his own team. I noticed how you never replied to me after all those lies you were spewing about Ginobili.

Let's take a look at their bullshyt you said -

Why do people keep bringing this up?

There are a million ways to get all 3 guys at least 35 minutes and break them into lineups where each one can be the 1, 2, or 3 option...

They were more or less doing that already (Harden wouldn't average 35 mpg). However, it wouldn't warrant paying them all max/near-max money, when their production/impact wouldn't equal out to the percentage of salary each player took up. Harden would only have the output of a 6th man, providing little-to-no defense.

Hell just start two of the three and let Harden come in when you bring the other one out and right there you got about 25 minutes of him being the second scoring option..

That's what they were more or less doing anyway.

Rest KD and Westbrook and you got another 7 - 10 minutes of him being the primary option...

32 - 35 minutes with Harden at the first or second scoring option...

That's not even remotely practicle since that's predicated on Westbrook/Durant having less time together than a Harden/Durant or Harden/Westbrook combination. Harden was ALWAYS going to be the third perimeter option.

The fact that people think this could not have happened is a testament to how sorry of a coach josh brooks is...

Josh Brooks?

Of course it could have happened, @L&HH's point was Harden wouldn't be the type of player he is today if he stayed in OKC, meaning the level that all three are currently playing at - you wouldn't see if they were all still together. It was wasn't an issue of them playing together, it was fitting them all within the salary cap.

IF Pop...or Carlisle...or even Doc Rivers had 3 of the top 15 scorers in basketball would anyone be saying "nah it's to hard it won't work"

IT'S WASN'T AN ISSUE OF THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO PLAY TOGETHER. IT WORKED. Money was the issue. Stop saying this dumb shyt. And three of the top 15 scorers who are all perimeter players on one team wouldn't all reach their full potential if they were on the same team.

The Spurs wouldn't pay three perimeter players max money.

shyt Carlisle is making Dirk and Monta work and they are two of the most useless players in the league when they don't have the basketball in their hands...

How does this comparison have any relevance when that's only TWO players.

 

[SwagKingKong]

I don't think I called it a good trade. But I also didn't get all up in arms over it like it was terrible & was about to set everything back or something. It was what it was.

Which was one of the worst trades in the history of the league.

That people still try to rationalize the move is hilarious

Trade one of the best Young players in the league for Adams, Lamb and a 1-year rental of Kevin Martin, brehs.

 

[FTBS]

Having Harden didnt make much of a difference in the finals vs Miami.

Dont know why ppl think it's a given they'd be a title team

They won 4 straight against the Spurs and gave MIA 4 straight close games with Harden playing like . What is illogical about thinking that keeping that team together and having them play better leads to a title? Dudes acting like they got bounced in the 2nd round or some shyt.

 

[Buckeye Fever]

They won 4 straight against the Spurs and gave MIA 4 straight close games with Harden playing like . What is illogical about thinking that keeping that team together and having them play better leads to a title? Dudes acting like they got bounced in the 2nd round or some shyt.

Yeah, but would they lose Ibaka if they re-signed Harden?

Ibaka was a big component in them beatin the Spurs.

 

[FTBS]

Yeah, but would they lose Ibaka if they re-signed Harden?

Ibaka was a big component in them beatin the Spurs.

Ibaka was locked up before Harden was traded if I am not mistaken and either way they could have kept them all had they been willing to pay the tax. That's really what this all comes down to. They didn't trade him because they didn't want him or because they weren't successful but because they didn't want to get taxed.

 

[Buckeye Fever]

Ibaka was locked up before Harden was traded if I am not mistaken and either way they could have kept them all had they been willing to pay the tax. That's really what this all comes down to. They didn't trade him because they didn't want him or because they weren't successful but because they didn't want to get taxed.

Didnt know Ibaka was locked up.

Damn, that was a potential dynasty smh

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

His value wasn't gonna drop unless he got hurt..

Not necessarily from performance, but from entering restricted free agent. territory. He wouldn't net two first-round picks, a 20 ppg scorer and a second-round pick, when teams would bargain down the Thunder as they'd no longer be in the driver's seat. They were already starting to lose what power they had over teams prior to trading Harden.

You keep listing what they got out of the trade as if any of it has done them any good. Coulda woulda shoulda draft picks and the top scorer on a shytty team that can't really do much else isn't a great haul when you didn't have to trade dude and you are trying to win championships..

Yes they did, they were always going to trade him. Harden wanted max money and more of a role, and a team like Houston were willing to give him that. So yes the value of assets does come into the equation, they're the most important thing - they're the only thing in the grand scheme of things.

Harden was always going to leave.

We aren't talking about some team that was trying to find it's way. We talking about a team that got through the superior conference to the Finals and was right there with the eventual champs. There is no reason to rush change there.

If Westbrook wouldn't have been injured there is the STRONGEST possibility they would have gone to the Finals again. #1 record in the Western conference, #1 offense, top 5 defense all without Harden. With or without Harden over the past two seasons they still would've failed to win a Championship because of injuries.

You either keep him, get what you need for him, or trade him at the last minute and get a comparable haul. You don't trade him with a year out for that. There are 30 teams in the league and half of them have no idea what they are doing. There is always a sucker...always..

They traded him because they wanted to move on and cut the inevitability of the situation (he was always going to leave) in half and start building for the future. Why run the risk of may be getting a comparable haul when they had a package that was more than enough for Harden all ready there for them? Don't you realize that teams wouldn't have given anywhere near the assets that Houston gave in an S&T. Plus there's the risk that Harden could've signed an offer-sheet that OKC wouldn't have matched, and they would've been left with nothing. We saw what happened with Parsons in the summer.

He had no choice but to work on their timetable as he was restricted. I'd rather take the chance with the possibility that a big won't be used right than trade a perimeter guy with potential for an older perimeter guy with less potential and a bunch of maybe's when we were already on the cusp of a title .

I don't disagree with that at all, point is the package they got was about as good as it was gonna get - they could have had McLemore and if they had a coach they could utilize all these players - folk would have a different take on things. Regardless no amount of assets they got in return either then or when Harden was going to be a RFA would have won them a title. We can't possibly say what they received in the Harden trade was bad, when they were looking like arguably the best team in the league and had a great chance of making the Finals again, all without him.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

They won 4 straight against the Spurs and gave MIA 4 straight close games with Harden playing like . What is illogical about thinking that keeping that team together and having them play better leads to a title? Dudes acting like they got bounced in the 2nd round or some shyt.

Who's to say they wouldn't have beaten the Spurs in the WCF again when they were a more dominant team, if Westbrook didn't go down?