Remember Thunder kept Ibaka over Harden

[Ben Simmons]

:confusedshrug:

[Akrazotile]

Harden was gonna get a max on the open market. Ibaka got 12 million/yr

[Young X]

That trade just gets worse and worse by the day. inb4 DMAVS41 gets in here to try and defend it again.

[noob cake]

Harden was gonna get a max on the open market. Ibaka got 12 million/yr

OKC offered 55.5m/4 years. Harden wanted 60m/4 years.

Presti didn't think Harden wasn't worth the absolute max so he got his ass shipped out.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8562868/oklahoma-city-thunder-trade-james-harden-houston-rockets

[DMAVS41]

That trade just gets worse and worse by the day. inb4 DMAVS41 gets in here to try and defend it again.

How does it get worse?

Adams turned into a ****ing stud and the Thunder just played the best basketball they ever have as a franchise.

James Harden has turned into a ****ing joke and doesn't do anything the Thunder need.

Just imagine you are the Thunder right now...you'd never even think about adding a guy like Harden.

Sorry...that trade looks better and better as time has gone on.

Inb4 people can't admit that you don't want 3 ball dominant perimeter star players on the same team taking up all the money. And can't admit what a ****ing stud Adams has become.

Not to mention they were better the year after Harden left as well...we will ignore that.

[SaltyMeatballs]

How does it get worse?

Adams turned into a ****ing stud and the Thunder just played the best basketball they ever have as a franchise.

James Harden has turned into a ****ing joke and doesn't do anything the Thunder need.

Just imagine you are the Thunder right now...you'd never even think about adding a guy like Harden.

Sorry...that trade looks better and better as time has gone on.

Inb4 people can't admit that you don't want 3 ball dominant perimeter star players on the same team taking up all the money. And can't admit what a ****ing stud Adams has become.

Not to mention they were better the year after Harden left as well...we will ignore that.
What? :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

What? :oldlol:

Not saying he's a bad player, but do you realize how much of a joke he's thought of to not make all nba with his kind of production?

Everyone here is so funny with Harden. Everyone talks about how horrible his defense is, how he's a mental case, how he isn't a good leader / teammate...post pics of him not trying all time...etc.

But the trade comes up and you'd think he was Lebron James.

It's one my favorite things to witness here.

I love how everyone just assumes he was Manu Ginobili willing to whatever it took for his team to win. What ever made you guys think that? They were already having chemistry issues the two years before the trade at times.

[Bosnian Sajo]

What? :oldlol:

Harden sucks, give me Oladipo/Sabonis over him.

[ArbitraryWater]

Cmon man, at the time everyone was for the sticking with Ibaka...

I remember being one of the few he feared Harden more (didnt like OKC).

[bballbball]

Not saying he's a bad player, but do you realize how much of a joke he's thought of to not make all nba with his kind of production?

Everyone here is so funny with Harden. Everyone talks about how horrible his defense is, how he's a mental case, how he isn't a good leader / teammate...post pics of him not trying all time...etc.

But the trade comes up and you'd think he was Lebron James.

It's one my favorite things to witness here.

I love how everyone just assumes he was Manu Ginobili willing to whatever it took for his team to win. What ever made you guys think that? They were already having chemistry issues the two years before the trade at times.

He is a special player though. They didn't do well this season but he was 2nd in MVP last season and got to the conference finals. Rockets have made the playoffs every season with him in a loaded west, even his first year where the Rockets were projected to be a top 3 worst team before he was traded there.

[DMAVS41]

He is a special player though. They didn't do well this season but he was 2nd in MVP last season and got to the conference finals. Rockets have made the playoffs every season with him in a loaded west, even his first year where the Rockets were projected to be a top 3 worst team before he was traded there.

I agree....he's special.

He's just not special as the 3rd option on a team that is going to have an elite offense whether he plays or not...and if you keep those 3 together...it's almost impossible to add the necessary defense around them.

And keeping 3 high usage perimeter players happy that all want the ball is extremely difficult for long periods of time.

Harden is best suited for the current role he's playing. He's a number 1 option type guy...not a 3rd option type guy.

[sammichoffate]

It wasn't too good at the time, but it was the right trade. Adams is a much better fit, everyone else like Lamb was just filler.

[Young X]

I agree....he's special.

He's just not special as the 3rd option on a team that is going to have an elite offense whether he plays or not...and if you keep those 3 together...it's almost impossible to add the necessary defense around them.

And keeping 3 high usage perimeter players happy that all want the ball is extremely difficult for long periods of time.

Harden is best suited for the current role he's playing. He's a number 1 option type guy...not a 3rd option type guy.Dude...OKC was 3 wins away from a championship. It was already working. They kept getting better every year.

You don't trade away a key player like that when you've improved constantly every year to the point where you get to the finals.

They had a chance at becoming a potential dynasty and they blew it.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Just imagine you are the Thunder right now...you'd never even think about adding a guy like Harden.

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

Pretty sure any team in the league would cut off their left testicle for a 29/7/6 guy.

You must be on that good shit now, brotha.

:biggums:

[Gilles Simon]

Thunder nailed the Adams trade.

[imdaman99]

Dude...OKC was 3 wins away from a championship. It was already working. They kept getting better every year.

You don't trade away a key player like that when you've improved constantly every year to the point where you get to the finals.

They had a chance at becoming a potential dynasty and they blew it.
The problem is all 3 of them are best with the ball in their hands. Sure each of the 3 can create shots for the other 4 on the court regardless of which 4 they are, but putting them all on the court in the same lineup? It would be sort of redundant. Harden was perfect in the Ginobli role, dominating the other teams bench and closing the games. He's damn good for the Rockets because of his usage rate, which he would not have had in OKC.

Harden would have never averaged 25 being the 3rd option. That only happens in video games :lol Sacrifices have to be made.
They likely don't get Adams without trading Harden. Is Harden better than Adams? Sure. But Adams is clearly their 3rd best player now.

[bobopenguin]

What? :oldlol:

his right. u build around harden = lul.

[Young X]

The problem is all 3 of them are best with the ball in their hands. Sure each of the 3 can create shots for the other 4 on the court regardless of which 4 they are, but putting them all on the court in the same lineup? It would be sort of redundant. Harden was perfect in the Ginobli role, dominating the other teams bench and closing the games. He's damn good for the Rockets because of his usage rate, which he would not have had in OKC.

Harden would have never averaged 25 being the 3rd option. That only happens in video games :lol Sacrifices have to be made.
They likely don't get Adams without trading Harden. Is Harden better than Adams? Sure. But Adams is clearly their 3rd best player now.Who says he would have to average 25? He was already great in his role.

He was the difference in the Thunder reaching the peak they did. When he went to the floor, they went to a whole nother level.

I understand the whole 3 dominant ballhandlers thing but in this case, it was working. If the refs call an obvious missed foul on Lebron in game 2, OKC probably goes up 2-0 in the finals.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Who says he would have to average 25? He was already great in his role.

He was the difference in the Thunder reaching the peak they did. When he went to the floor, they went to a whole nother level.

I understand the whole 3 dominant ballhandlers thing but in this case, it was working. If the refs call an obvious missed foul on Lebron in game 2, OKC probably goes up 2-0 in the finals.

That's true. They probably win that series if the games were called fair, but the NBA had an agenda that season as seen in the Celtics series with the Rondo no call as well. I remember Westbrook going for 43 in a close game on almost all drives and shooting like 1 FT. One of the most disgusting series/title runs I've seen.

:coleman:

[Akrazotile]

Not saying he's a bad player, but do you realize how much of a joke he's thought of to not make all nba with his kind of production?

Everyone here is so funny with Harden. Everyone talks about how horrible his defense is, how he's a mental case, how he isn't a good leader / teammate...post pics of him not trying all time...etc.

But the trade comes up and you'd think he was Lebron James.

It's one my favorite things to witness here.

I love how everyone just assumes he was Manu Ginobili willing to whatever it took for his team to win. What ever made you guys think that? They were already having chemistry issues the two years before the trade at times.




Im with you man. This was not a "sum of the parts" situation. You dont just take Harden's production as the go-to guy in Houston and think you can add it verbatim to the Thunder.

But remember, this is ISH. Where people think the higher your ppg, the better you are as a player.

Kobe, Iverson, Arenas, Melo, Harden, Love > Duncan, Gasol, Nash, Iguodala etc


People dont think in in-depth layers here. Besides the LeThick Family :rockon:

[BlakFrankWhite]

Really? No wayyyyyy

[FireDavidKahn]

Harden was gonna get a max on the open market. Ibaka got 12 million/yr
Harden said he would take a paycut to stay:facepalm

[Gougou]

Harden was only because of Cap, without the Cap they would've kept Harden

[DMAVS41]

Dude...OKC was 3 wins away from a championship. It was already working. They kept getting better every year.

You don't trade away a key player like that when you've improved constantly every year to the point where you get to the finals.

They had a chance at becoming a potential dynasty and they blew it.

Dude...you are ignoring the points;

1. You say they kept getting better every year. Okay... I agree. And when Harden left after 12..they got better. They had a better win rate and they improved on both sides of the ball. They went from having the 2nd best offense to the best...and went from having the 11th best defense to the 4th best defense.

Please acknowledge this when you spew a narrative that doesn't make sense. We know they were great with him...they just also happened to be even better without him the next year. It's no shock that the defense got a lot better when you shed a player like Harden (and hell...he was only going to get worse as his eyes for the ball and the spotlight got bigger).

Please address this. They got better the year he left.

And, I might add, they lost in large part in the finals because Harden was terrible. Please acknowledge this.

2. You do have to trade away one of your key players when your owners don't want to pay for the team. Even if they did, the problem of putting that much money in 3 ball dominant perimeter players is suspect from a basketball standpoint.

3. There were already chemistry issues. Do you really not remember the "bench WB in crunch time"..."Harden should start"...etc.? You don't remember that stuff? That isn't ideal. You don't want two guys on a team competing against each other like that. Again, that stuff almost always gets worse...not better.

4. Why dynasty? Why would you think they are winning titles with the injuries they suffered or beating some of those great teams given how shit their defense would have been.

Your argument, as always, ignores reality. All you are doing is basically saying that keeping Harden would have made Durant and WB never get hurt. And that isn't a good argument. Because i could just counter and say I think the chemistry would have been so bad the thing would have imploded.

Here is what we know;

The three of them are not an ideal basketball fit all given the cap it takes for all of them. Harden is not Manu. He's not a guy that thrives in the 6th man type role. Chemistry issues already started.

The Thunder lost after Harden played like ass in the finals. The Thunder got better the next year on both ends without him. They now have a great center (exactly what they need) and the flexibility of a roster to make moves like they did today.

I'll ask again..if you looked at the Thunder right now. Are you honestly telling me that you think trying to sign James Harden (if he was a free agent) would address the issues this team has? Please answer.

Presti has made mistakes...some costly ones. But the Harden trade was not one of them. The Thunder suffered some bad luck with injuries and Presti screwed them by not getting in a remotely decent 2 guard for what they needed. He didn't need Oladipo back in 14, but he needed something better than Butler/Fisher.

And, quite frankly, they aren't winning shit if Durant is gonna choke in a home game 6 with a finals trip on the line like he just did. Doesn't matter if you have Harden or not...you aren't beating elite teams with your best player not showing up at home.

We've been over this time and time again.

And all I ever hear is...don't break up a team that was close. But that fails to address the reality of the real situation. You know, like getting clear cut better on both ends without him the next year. But yea...we'll just stick to a narrative because everyone is so entrenched in it.

And I still laugh at the Harden love. One minute he sucks...the next minutes he's Lebron. Make up our minds ISH...

[DMAVS41]

Who says he would have to average 25? He was already great in his role.

He was the difference in the Thunder reaching the peak they did. When he went to the floor, they went to a whole nother level.

I understand the whole 3 dominant ballhandlers thing but in this case, it was working. If the refs call an obvious missed foul on Lebron in game 2, OKC probably goes up 2-0 in the finals.

They were better without him the next year...on both ends.

You know what else would have helped them win the finals? Harden not playing like shit.

LOL at your argument being a missed call instead of acknowledging how bad Harden was in that series.

But yea...it was the calls. It wasn't the no defense playing redundant ball dominant guard that didn't show up.

[Young X]

They were better without him the next year...on both ends.

You know what else would have helped them win the finals? Harden not playing like shit.

LOL at your argument being a missed call instead of acknowledging how bad Harden was in that series.

But yea...it was the calls. It wasn't the no defense playing redundant ball dominant guard that didn't show up.Better team in the regular season.

Which had alot to do with Durant and Westbrook improving skill wise as young players.

And I already know you're gonna attribute that to Harden not being there and I don't agree with it.

I guarantee you the 2013 Thunder with Harden there is even better than the one that we seen.

You ain't about to tell me Kevin Martin makes them a better, more dangerous team especially in the postseason.

[DMAVS41]

Better team in the regular season.

Which had alot to do with Durant and Westbrook improving skill wise as young players.

And I already know you're gonna attribute that to Harden not being there and I don't agree with it.

I guarantee you the 2013 Thunder with Harden there is even better than the one that we seen.

You ain't about to tell me Kevin Martin makes them a better, more dangerous team especially in the postseason.

You guarantee it? Hard to get much better than the best offense.

And they certainly aren't as good defensively....you simply can't argue with that.

The problem is you are thinking that Harden can make superstar level impact on that team and also let WB and Durant grow.

Have you ever thought that Durant and WB grew as players in part because Harden was gone?

Did you ever think the team improved defensively because Harden was gone?

You can't guarantee something we don't know.

Lastly, I'm not arguing that the Thunder should have traded Harden and that was the only deal possible. I'm saying it made sense and wasn't a bad trade. You are calling it a terrible trade. So the burden falls a bit more on you.

And I'm just not seeing many compelling arguments.

And I'll ask again...is James Harden the type of player Sam Presti should be targeting right now? If not...why not?

Or, I'll ask a simpler question. Which player would have helped this Thunder team more in the playoffs this year?

1. James Harden

2. Khris Middleton

[Im Still Ballin]

Anyone trying to argue OKC were better off without Harden, is a moron.

Talent beats everything else out. Bottom line. 3 MVP caliber players. Bottom line.

[DMAVS41]

Anyone that thinks the Thunder in the playoffs this year would have been better off with Harden rather than Middleton is a moron.

[Ben Simmons]

Anyone that thinks the Thunder in the playoffs this year would have been better off with Harden rather than Middleton is a moron.
Why?

I think you are underestimating how much a third scorer has an effect on teams. It would mean Curry would have to play defense every possession. The Cavs wore him out making him do that.

[DMAVS41]

Why?

I think you are underestimating how much a third scorer has an effect on teams. It would mean Curry would have to play defense every possession. The Cavs wore him out making him do that.

Middleton can score. Do you know who Middleton is?

A good solid defender, good spot up shooter, nice scorer, nice length...etc. Everything the Thunder would want and need.

But he's not as talented as James Harden.

But we all know it's not always about talent.

Iverson, Kobe, Carmelo, and Kevin Love on one team....it's not going to be a good team. All players are super talented....but the fit actually matters.

A team with much less overall talent that is built properly is likely to beat that team.

We all know these things...but for some reason when it comes to this subject. Everyone on here pretends like chemistry, fit, role, redundancy, defense, and cap implications don't exist.

And it's hilarious.

[Ben Simmons]

Middleton can score. Do you know who Middleton is?

A good solid defender, good spot up shooter, nice scorer, nice length...etc. Everything the Thunder would want and need.

But he's not as talented as James Harden.

But we all know it's not always about talent.

Iverson, Kobe, Carmelo, and Kevin Love on one team....it's not going to be a good team. All players are super talented....but the fit actually matters.

A team with much less overall talent that is built properly is likely to beat that team.

We all know these things...but for some reason when it comes to this subject. Everyone on here pretends like chemistry, fit, role, redundancy, defense, and cap implications don't exist.

And it's hilarious.
Iverson, Kobe, Carmelo and Love would absolutely be a great team. Defense with Love probably wouldnt work without a center though.

[DMAVS41]

Iverson, Kobe, Carmelo and Love would absolutely be a great team. Defense with Love probably wouldnt work without a center though.

We view the game too differently if you think that is how you would want to build a team.

Agree to disagree.

[Young X]

You guarantee it? Hard to get much better than the best offense.

And they certainly aren't as good defensively....you simply can't argue with that.

The problem is you are thinking that Harden can make superstar level impact on that team and also let WB and Durant grow.

Have you ever thought that Durant and WB grew as players in part because Harden was gone?

Did you ever think the team improved defensively because Harden was gone?

You can't guarantee something we don't know.

Lastly, I'm not arguing that the Thunder should have traded Harden and that was the only deal possible. I'm saying it made sense and wasn't a bad trade. You are calling it a terrible trade. So the burden falls a bit more on you.

And I'm just not seeing many compelling arguments.

And I'll ask again...is James Harden the type of player Sam Presti should be targeting right now? If not...why not?

Or, I'll ask a simpler question. Which player would have helped this Thunder team more in the playoffs this year?

1. James Harden

2. Khris MiddletonNo Harden is not the ideal player the Thunder should be targetting right now because he is ball dominant but also because of him already being established as a superstar offensive player...which wasn't the case in 2012.

I don't think Harden's fit on the team and his ego would've been as big of a problem as you think they would've been had they kept him. He already had a role on that team that he excelled in which played a significant role in their success.

I don't think you realize the effect he had on that team. They went to a 115.4 offensive rating and a +9.9 point differential when he was on the floor. That's basically like the Warriors in this past regular season. They were +8.0 points per possession better with him in the game which was the highest mark on the team. They were +18.0 better with him in the playoffs, by far the highest mark on the team.

You bring up his performance in the finals which is a fair point, but his play against the Spurs and the effect he had on the team in the rounds before that is major reason they even got there in the first place.

[DMAVS41]

No Harden is not the ideal player the Thunder should be targetting right now because he is ball dominant but also because of him already being established as a superstar offensive player...which wasn't the case in 2012.

I don't think Harden's fit on the team and his ego would've been as big of a problem as you think they would've been had they kept him. He already had a role on that team that he excelled in which played a significant role in their success.

I don't think you realize the effect he had on that team. They went to a 115.4 offensive rating and a +9.9 point differential when he was on the floor. That's basically like the Warriors in this past regular season. They were +8.0 points per possession better with him in the game which was the highest mark on the team. They were +18.0 better with him in the playoffs by far the highest mark on the team.

You bring up his performance in the finals which is a fair point, but his play against the Spurs and the effect he had on the team in the rounds before that is major reason they even got there in the first place.

Yea...he's a really good player. I'm not refuting that. You make it sound like I'm saying the Thunder would have been stupid to keep him.

Again, that isn't my argument. My argument is that the trade made sense and wasn't terrible.

I think it's a little misleading to use those on off numbers when we have a literal experiment run for us comparing the 12 and 13 Thunder...and the 13 Thunder were just better. You want to reduce that to "as good or better"...fine, but it's just semantics.

Take a look at the 12 and 13 Thunder...in order of mpg;

12 - Durant/WB/Harden/Ibaka/Perkins/Thabo/Collison/Fisher/Cook

13 - Durant/WB/Ibaka/Martin/Thabo/Perkins/Collison/Fisher/Jackson

Now, you literally can't find a team that for all intensive purposes stays that similar back to back years to run the experiment I'm talking about.

How are you arguing what you are when you know the next year they had even better metrics. It's just not a compelling argument when you replace him with Kevin Martin and the team gets better on both ends and wins 60 games.

It's just not the right role for Harden....maybe early on it was, but I think you are ignoring the chemistry issues that already surfaced and seem very willing to just assume Harden was content with being a 6th man. Never struck me as that type of guy deep down..and I'd argue the last 3 years are pretty good evidence for me.

Again, the trade allowed them to stay a top level contender in 13. Presti had the chance to put them over the top in 14 and failed them. Durant got hurt in 15...and in 16 they had the best team they ever had and should have beaten a 73 win Warriors team if Durant didn't choke.

So...dynasty with Harden? Just no. They weren't winning anything with those injuries...and all I've seen out of the guys in question now is Harden falling apart on the biggest stage and Durant falling apart in the biggest game of his career. And you aren't winning when that happens.

[Young X]

Yea...he's a really good player. I'm not refuting that. You make it sound like I'm saying the Thunder would have been stupid to keep him.

Again, that isn't my argument. My argument is that the trade made sense and wasn't terrible.

I think it's a little misleading to use those on off numbers when we have a literal experiment run for us comparing the 12 and 13 Thunder...and the 13 Thunder were just better. You want to reduce that to "as good or better"...fine, but it's just semantics.

Take a look at the 12 and 13 Thunder...in order of mpg;

12 - Durant/WB/Harden/Ibaka/Perkins/Thabo/Collison/Fisher/Cook

13 - Durant/WB/Ibaka/Martin/Thabo/Perkins/Collison/Fisher/Jackson

Now, you literally can't find a team that for all intensive purposes stays that similar back to back years to run the experiment I'm talking about.

How are you arguing what you are when you know the next year they had even better metrics. It's just not a compelling argument when you replace him with Kevin Martin and the team gets better on both ends and wins 60 games.

It's just not the right role for Harden....maybe early on it was, but I think you are ignoring the chemistry issues that already surfaced and seem very willing to just assume Harden was content with being a 6th man. Never struck me as that type of guy deep down..and I'd argue the last 3 years are pretty good evidence for me.

Again, the trade allowed them to stay a top level contender in 13. Presti had the chance to put them over the top in 14 and failed them. Durant got hurt in 15...and in 16 they had the best team they ever had and should have beaten a 73 win Warriors team if Durant didn't choke.

So...dynasty with Harden? Just no. They weren't winning anything with those injuries...and all I've seen out of the guys in question now is Harden falling apart on the biggest stage and Durant falling apart in the biggest game of his career. And you aren't winning when that happens.Again, alot of the reason they had better metrics the next season was because of Durant's individual improvement skill wise and decision making wise. Ibaka also developed into an automatic midrange shooter. Westbrook also improved skill wise.

I don't really see how the improvement of especially Durant and Ibaka has much to do with Harden not being there. They were young players still developing regardless.

And whatever chemistry issues that came up didn't stop them from getting to the finals. How about keeping a young, extremely talented core like that together and allow them to figure it out themselves?

I think Harden being there instead of Martin makes them a more dangerous team. I think they get to the finals and possibly beat the Heat and that didn't end up happening - which brings me to something I know you don't like to factor in and might think is stupid...

But Westbrook's injury that year in the playoffs absolutely does not happen without Harden being traded to Houston. That's another reason why I think this was a negatively impactful trade.

[AintNoSunshine]

Why exactly did he transform from an elite shot blocker/defender to an average, soft jump shooter?

[DMAVS41]

Again, alot of the reason they had better metrics the next season was because of Durant's individual improvement skill wise and decision making wise. Ibaka also developed into an automatic midrange shooter. Westbrook also improved skill wise.

I don't really see how the improvement of especially Durant and Ibaka has much to do with Harden not being there. They were young players still developing regardless.

And whatever chemistry issues that came up didn't stop them from getting to the finals. How about keeping a young, extremely talented core like that together and allow them to figure it out themselves?

I think Harden being there instead of Martin makes them a more dangerous team. I think they get to the finals and possibly beat the Heat and that didn't end up happening - which brings me to something I know you don't like to factor in and might think is stupid...

But Westbrook's injury that year absolutely does not happen without Harden being traded to Houston. That's another reason why I think this was a negatively impactful trade.

Of course players naturally get better, but Durant was in year 6 at that point man. You are being a bit misleading in my opinion when you talk about him like he really hadn't seen it all. He and that team already went through the learning curve for the most part. They played a tough series against the Lakers, then made the conference finals, then made the finals. Durant was not some young player with a lot to learn...he was putting up 30/8/3 61% TS back in 2010. I think you are really missing what removing Harden did to allow WB/Durant/Ibaka to all play more ideal roles...while the team focused on defense more.

Harden is better than Martin. We all understand that. The question is...can WB/Durant/Ibaka all play at the level they were if Harden stays. What happens with the chemistry? How do they get better in the future? How do they improve the center position they badly need to address?

So you make the move...and by any logical evaluation...the team was as good or better the following year. You gain the ability to improve the team the next year (again...Presti failed here). And you add Adams at center (exactly what you need going forward).

I'm just not seeing how it's a bad trade. You aren't arguing that really. Like I said...what your argument always boils down to is injuries. And that is just a slippery slope. You just can't make a trade trying to factor in the fluke chance of injury to one of your stars. You aren't winning without your stars anyway...doesn't matter if you have Harden.

I could just counter and say that I think Harden and WB would have gotten into it too much and WB would have demanded to leave. Or perhaps Harden tears up his knee in practice one day if he stays.

Pretending like we know that the Thunder have perfect health if they keep Harden just isn't a good argument because it's so out of the control of everyone.

If the Thunder and Warriors completed a trade tonight that sent Durant to the Warriors for Barnes/Ezeli/Rush...

And then Durant tears up his knee next season and misses 2 years....that does not make that a bad trade for the Warriors. It would be an amazing trade for the Warriors...they ****ing landed Kevin Durant. You can't control when and if players get injured...and you have no ability to know if a guy you already have is more likely to get injured than the guy you are trading for.

So...yea...I don't think it's a valid point when evaluating a trade.

[Young X]

Of course players naturally get better, but Durant was in year 6 at that point man. You are being a bit misleading in my opinion when you talk about him like he really hadn't seen it all. He and that team already went through the learning curve for the most part. They played a tough series against the Lakers, then made the conference finals, then made the finals. Durant was not some young player with a lot to learn...he was putting up 30/8/3 61% TS back in 2010. I think you are really missing what removing Harden did to allow WB/Durant/Ibaka to all play more ideal roles...while the team focused on defense more.

Harden is better than Martin. We all understand that. The question is...can WB/Durant/Ibaka all play at the level they were if Harden stays. What happens with the chemistry? How do they get better in the future? How do they improve the center position they badly need to address?

So you make the move...and by and logical evaluation...the team was as good or better the following year. You gain the ability to improve the team the next year (again...Presti failed here). And you add Adams at center (exactly what you need going forward).

I'm just not seeing how it's a bad trade. You aren't arguing that really. Like I said...what your argument always boils down to is injuries. And that is just a slippery slope. You just can't make a trade trying to factor in the fluke chance of injury to one of your stars. You aren't winning without your stars anyway...doesn't matter if you have Harden.

I could just counter and say that I think Harden and WB would have gotten into it too much and WB would have demanded to leave. Or perhaps Harden tears up his knee in practice one day if he stays.

Pretending like we know that the Thunder have perfect health if they keep Harden just isn't a good argument because it's so out of the control of everyone.

If the Thunder and Warriors completed a trade tonight that sent Durant to the Warriors for Barnes/Ezeli/Rush...

And then Durant tears up his knee next season and misses 2 years....that does not make that a bad trade for the Warriors. It would be an amazing trade for the Warriors...they ****ing landed Kevin Durant. You can't control when and if players get injured...and you have no ability to know if a guy you already have is more likely to get injured than the guy you are trading for.

So...yea...I don't think it's a valid point when evaluating a trade.I'm really just looking at how positively/negatively impactful that trade was. They still to this day have not gotten to back to the finals when we all expected them to.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic but I'm looking at having a young, extremely talented core that shows great promise and improves every year to the point where they get to the finals. You trade one of the main guys for a decent, one-dimensional SG (that bounces the very next season for nothing), you lose in the 2nd round and never get back to that point. Not good.

I think the difference here is you're looking like "was it a smart basketball decision at the time" without factoring in the repercussions of it later on.

I'm looking at it from all angles and asking if it ended up benefiting the Thunder's chances at winning a championship.

We know so far it hasn't helped OKC.

But I have very little reason to believe KD/Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka wouldn't have continued to work and have better success. All they did up to that point was get better. :confusedshrug:

[ArbitraryWater]

It's a very interesting discussion..

You get 3 MVP level players, but at the end of the day, THREE ball dominant perimeter players, who all take/wanna take 20 shots a game (you couldn't have kept Harden a 6th man, too much talent, too much him knowing he could be more).

That's redundant.

Lets remember, you almost always win in this league through a big/small combo... Either a dominant big, but at least a great rim protector/rebounder.

Since the 1980's, really the only this wasn't the case, and it was done with a great backcourt/wing players only, was Jordan/Pippen (and they had Grant, and later Rodman, so that kind of falls flat), and LeBron/Wade...

Edit: I do agree Westbrook probably doesn't get injured in 2013.. Durant in 2015 though? He had a ton of nagging stuff and kept hurting himself..

As for them not making the finals the past four years, they really only had two cracks at it, with the Westbrook injury in 2013 and Durant (+Ibaka) injury in 2015.

The other two years they made the WCF, two games (one OT short of one game) and one game (with a huge choke) off of the finals, against two of the more dominant teams ever.

[DMAVS41]

I'm really just looking at how positively/negatively impactful that trade was. They still to this day have not gotten to back to the finals when we all expected them to.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic but I'm looking at having a young, extremely talented core that shows great promise and improves every year to the point where they get to the finals. You trade one of the main guys for a decent, one-dimensional SG (that bounces the very next season for nothing), you lose in the 2nd round and never get back to that point. Not good.

I think the difference here is you're looking like "was it a smart basketball decision at the time" without factoring in the repercussions of it later on.

I'm looking at it from all angles and asking if it ended up benefiting the Thunder's chances at winning a championship.

We know so far it hasn't helped OKC.

But I have very little reason to believe KD/Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka wouldn't have continued to work and have better success. All they did up to that point was get better. :confusedshrug:

Yea...but I think that is really simplistic.

You WB got hurt in 13. They lost a tight series to an all time great Spurs team in 14. Durant got hurt in 15. They lost to a 73 win Warriors team (because Durant choked) in 16.

Like...these margins are tight. Even with perfect health and chemistry....it's not crazy to think they don't win one. The West's top teams plus Miami/Cavs are not pushovers man.

Could they have won one with perfect health and Harden? Of course, but nothing is a lock. But I think that is just another way of saying they win if WB doesn't get hurt in 13...which I agree with. They didn't have Harden that year...nor did it look like they needed him.

And I don't see how they are competing against the great teams without Adams going forward. And guys like him are next to impossible to get without making a big trade or finding him in the draft.

What repercussions are you talking about though? You are just talking about random injuries that would be absurd to tie to a trade. They wanted Martin to leave. The whole point of that trade was to remain elite the next year while getting younger and gaining assets. Then you let Martin go and replace him. Presti just did a poor job of replacing him for 14, but you can't blame that on the Harden trade. Those are separate moves.

And, like I keep coming back to...and you admit...you wouldn't even think to add Harden to this Thunder team. I appreciate the honesty, but that should show you it made sense. This is a Thunder team that is simply elite on offense when WB/Durant are there....and what they are lacking is defense and spot up shooting. And we all know you don't go to Harden to fill that in.

[DMAVS41]

It's a very interesting discussion..

You get 3 MVP level players, but at the end of the day, THREE ball dominant perimeter players, who all take/wanna take 20 shots a game (you couldn't have kept Harden a 6th man, too much talent, too much him knowing he could be more).

That's redundant.

Lets remember, you almost always win in this league through a big/small combo... Either a dominant big, but at least a great rim protector/rebounder.

Since the 1980's, really the only this wasn't the case, and it was done with a great backcourt/wing players only, was Jordan/Pippen (and they had Grant, and later Rodman, so that kind of falls flat), and LeBron/Wade...

Edit: I do agree Westbrook probably doesn't get injured in 2013.. Durant in 2015 though? He had a ton of nagging stuff and kept hurting himself..

As for them not making the finals the past four years, they really only had two cracks at it, with the Westbrook injury in 2013 and Durant (+Ibaka) injury in 2015.

The other two years they made the WCF, two games (one OT short of one game) and one game (with a huge choke) off of the finals, against two of the more dominant teams ever.

Well said.

Again, I'm not arguing that they just had to trade Harden and would have been stupid to keep him. I'm simply arguing that there were sound reasons due to the cap situation, basketball fit, chemistry issues, and defensive concerns.

And the trade itself is under-rated, imo, because it gave the Thunder exactly what they needed at the time. They not only stayed elite the following year, but got better. They added 3 young players on great contracts...one of them turned into Adams (a guy that is clearly more valuable to this Thunder team last year and moving forward than Harden would be).

And yes...great point about the competition. The Spurs in 14 were one of the best teams ever. The 13 Spurs might have been better until the injuries in the finals.

And;

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/warriors-thunder-is-the-strongest-conference-finals-matchup-in-decades/

Like...there is no dynasty happening. Do they win in 13 if Harden stays and WB is healthy? Perhaps, but they wouldn't be favorites. At best it's something like a 25% chance they win it all if everything goes perfectly.

So I understand the arguments, but dynasty? Hell no...that wasn't ever on the table given the competition...and sadly, because I like him, Kevin Durant choking in the biggest game of his career.

[MiseryCityTexas]

People in here completely ignore the fact that the Thunder also traded away Jeff Green in exchange for sorry ass Kendrick Perkins. KD, Green, Harden, and Westbrook would've all had a championship(s) by now.:oldlol: