Thunder not paying Harden or Mavs not paying Nash. Which was worse?

[Kblaze8855]

Mavs gave the same 65 million Nash signed in Phoenix for to Dampier and Hardens offer was limited by them locking up Ibaka first. The talks around that are pretty funny actually:


.The Serge Ibaka extension raises multiple questions regarding what the team is planning to do with James Harden (http://bleacherreport.com/james-harden). The news that Serge Ibaka has reportedly signed a 4-year $48 million extension (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--serge-ibaka-reaches-agreement-on-four-year-extension-with-oklahoma-city.html)—according to multiple sources—with the OKC Thunder means the squad will have three of its four young superstars—Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and Ibaka—around for a long time.
Ibaka's signing was a great move by the Thunder brass. The Congo-native has improved dramatically since he's come into the league and has the type of potential that could have warranted a max-deal next summer. Instead, OKC locked up an elite low-post defender for much less money.


While the Thunder and its fans should be celebrating this move by Sam Presti, they also must consider what this move means for the team's fourth star, Harden. The 2012 Sixth Man of The Year is set to become a free agent at the end of the 2012-2013 season and could demand a max contract.




Anyway both left and became 60+ win team mvps who never made the finals.

I don’t know which of them you prefer but if it matters…relative to todays cap Nash was given 24 million and Harden 33. The suns and rockets stole those guys for like Tyler Herro money.

Which was more unforgivable?

[SouBeachTalents]

If we're talking strictly when it happened, Nash was already 30 and while he was for sure a star and a top 15-20 player, he'd never even made an All-NBA 2nd Team at that point in his career. I doubt even the Suns could've foreseen Nash flipping the script like that and turning into a 2x MVP. That kind of renaissance in your 30's is frankly unprecedented.

Harden was 22 and the Thunder were literally just coming off a Finals trip with two other top 10 players who were also the same age, including one who was already considered the 2nd best player in the league. To break that up, even if he did become arguably the worst ATG playoff performer ever lol, is basketball blasphemy.

[JohnMax]

Dallas went to two Finals without Steve Nash.
OKC never made it back to Finals without Harden.

[John8204]

It depends if the issue is for the teams...Harden was the worst for the lThunder because Dallas won and the Thunder should have moved Russ which they would have found over time.

If we are talking for the league it's Nash, Dallas ended up winning but Nash moving meant Shaq moved to Phoenix, Amare moved to the Knicks, Nash ended up joining the Superteam Lakers, which had Dwight leaving the Magic

[Soundwave]

Probably the Thunder/Harden was worse.

They had made the Finals and the 3 main guys were all young, why would you break that up for no good reason.

[tpols]

Easily Nash. Nash and Dirk would've won titles together. Harden and Westbrook were a clunky fit that even Durant couldnt save.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Westbrick and Ibaka were always more expendable. Presti sucks... other than Obvious picks like Durant he's blown almost every pick the last 10 plus years. Even his home run trades weren't home runs. Sabonis is a legit superstar now, and PG didn't even resign. He'll find a way to **** up the potential they have now too.

[iamgine]

The thing is Nash wouldn't be MVP Nash and Harden wouldn't be MVP Harden had they stayed in their original teams. But I feel Harden is more forgivable. Harden was a scorer/playmaker coming off the bench when OKC already had Russ/Durant. I can see why Ibaka was more of a priority.

[John8204]

The thing is Nash wouldn't be MVP Nash and Harden wouldn't be MVP Harden had they stayed in their original teams. But I feel Harden is more forgivable. Harden was a scorer/playmaker coming off the bench when OKC already had Russ/Durant. I can see why Ibaka was more of a priority.

Like I said Nash/Dirk stay together lot of things would have changed

1. Tim Duncan would have 5 legit rings not that 1 shady one when Nash got hard fouled by Horry.
2. Nash might have won one MVP, but I think Kobe wins the second one which leads
3. CPIII getting his MVP when they gave Kobe his legacy MVP
4. Shaq doesn't ditch Miami so Wade, Lebron might go to the Knicks and play with Carmello

[WhiteKyrie]

Easily Nash. Nash and Dirk would've won titles together. Harden and Westbrook were a clunky fit that even Durant couldnt save.

This. Needed to open up the offense around Nash and Dirk in Dallas and surround with defenders and rebounders like the 2011 team.

[DMAVS41]

If you remove the injury concerns for Nash, the Mavs letting Nash go was way worse imo. However, Nash was battling a bad back and nagging injuries at the time and had worn down in the playoffs again...and it is hard to predict the impact the rules changes made. So as much as I think Cuban has been pretty bad overall, I understand the Nash stuff...I disagreed with it at the time, but I get it...but given how good they were in 03 with the right team around them...they should have given it more time pretty clearly.

Harden? To me, one of Russ or Harden had to go...it just didn't make sense to keep them both together on the court and financially. The best argument for keeping Harden is that Russ had more trade value at the time, but given the restrictions in terms of money for ownership...trading Harden probably made the most sense.

[JohnMax]

I take back what I said. Both teams were better off without Nash and Harden.

The reason OKC wasn't as successful as Dallas is because they refused to embrace modern basketball. Ibaka and Durant were only pure shooters and Ibaka had no playmaking skills like Giannis. Look at what happened when Durant was put on a team that embraced modern basketball in Golden State. Instant championship success.