# Oklahoma City fires Scott Brooks



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/590929834999734272
Wow.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

I saw the rumors that this was going to happen but I didn't believe them. There will be some interesting coaching options available this offseason!


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Brooks got hosed. That team was devastated by injuries.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Scapegoat.

This reminds of the Kings firing Adelman back in the day. That worked out brilliantly.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Didn't they already offer his job to Kevin Ollie? I seriously thought he had already been fired.


----------



## UD40 (May 12, 2005)

This is a move with no one but Durant in mind, in my opinion. I'm thinking they get Ollie, but also just saw Billy Donovan as a potential option as well.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Ollie already came out and said he's not leaving UCONN


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Ollie already came out and said he's not leaving UCONN


Love it. He could be a guy who coaches UConn for the next 20 years!


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Thibs to OKC in the summer??


----------



## UD40 (May 12, 2005)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Thibs to OKC in the summer??


I can't see it. This will be a hard sell for someone already established in the league. Whoever takes the gig will be essentially buying in for a guaranteed 1 year run, but who knows what they'll have on the roster after that?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Feel bad for Brooks. What more could he do this year given the state of injuries?


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

So Brooks is coach of the year material with a healthy Durant and not worth a damn without him... That's the moral of this story.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Maybe they'll hire Mike D'Antoni.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Definitely the scapegoat. And not even the scapegoat for the failures as a team, but for their inability to stay healthy.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Failures as an organization...


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Not surprising, many believe he's a terrible strategist.

On the other hand though, the GM should fire himself for trading Harden because he didn't want to pay the luxury tax.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

Who are they going to get to replace him? People are talking about Ollie and Donovan, but those guys are college coaches. OKC taking a real gamble here if they don't try to bring in a guy who at least has some NBA coaching experience.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm taking anyone's support for this firing as an immediate endorsement of whoever they replace him with. The argument I've had with my friends the entire season is that I'm fine with replacing Brooks if they have someone better lined up, but who is it? I haven't had any answers to that question. 

Maybe Billy Donovan or whoever will surprise me.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

cima said:


> Not surprising, many believe he's a terrible strategist.
> 
> On the other hand though, the GM should fire himself for trading Harden because he didn't want to pay the luxury tax.


is that on the GM, or the owner?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Are you guys serious? This guy has been horrible for YEARS. I'm shocked he lasted 7 seasons with his startling inability to draw up an offense.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

UD40 said:


> Whoever takes the gig will be essentially buying in for a guaranteed 1 year run, but who knows what they'll have on the roster after that?


All the more reason to hire someone with NBA head coaching experience. Unless he's Pat Riley, history suggests handing an inexperienced coach a team with title expectations won't work out very well.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I'd assume it's Thibs job. At this point I think any coach will latch to any job offered after the coach carousel we've witnessed over the past few years, and seeing guys like George Karl sit at home without work for a few years.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

> @WojYahooNBA: Despite public statement, UConn's Kevin Ollie has significant interest in OKC coaching job, sources tell Yahoo. He's a top choice for Presti


Well shit just got real...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Westbrook is going to be incredibly difficult for any coach to take on, especially someone who never coached in the NBA a day in their life (Ollie or Donovan). 

They will either become more of a pushover than Brooks was, or they will clash with Westbrook and the whole situation will blow up the offseason before Durant is a free agent. 

Sounds promising.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Westbrook is going to be incredibly difficult for any coach to take on, especially someone who never coached in the NBA a day in their life (Ollie or Donovan).
> 
> They will either become more of a pushover than Brooks was, or they will clash with Westbrook and the whole situation will blow up the offseason before Durant is a free agent.
> 
> Sounds promising.


Bring in this guy..


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Westbrook is going to be incredibly difficult for any coach to take on, especially someone who never coached in the NBA a day in their life (Ollie or Donovan).
> 
> They will either become more of a pushover than Brooks was, or they will clash with Westbrook and the whole situation will blow up the offseason before Durant is a free agent.
> 
> Sounds promising.


W/e gets Durant or Westbrook in purple and gold. :devil:


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> W/e gets Durant or Westbrook in purple and gold. :devil:



:yesyesyes:


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

roux said:


> Bring in this guy..


Please yes. Just think of the possibilities.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Westbrook is going to be incredibly difficult for any coach to take on, especially someone who never coached in the NBA a day in their life (Ollie or Donovan).
> 
> They will either become more of a pushover than Brooks was, or they will clash with Westbrook and the whole situation will blow up the offseason before Durant is a free agent.
> 
> Sounds promising.


Agree it is going to be hard for whoever comes in given the alpha dog battle that will be going on next year. Durant needs to be that player for OKC to win a Championship IMO - their whole offense needs to be based around him.

The job Steve Kerr has done at the Warriors can give you some optimism on what a first year coach can do with a talented team though.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

but Kerr had organizational experience running the Suns and played under PJ _AND_ Pops so had some credentials already (not to mention he was handed a 50 win team)


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

edabomb said:


> Agree it is going to be hard for whoever comes in given the alpha dog battle that will be going on next year. Durant needs to be that player for OKC to win a Championship IMO - their whole offense needs to be based around him.
> 
> The job Steve Kerr has done at the Warriors can give you some optimism on what a first year coach can do with a talented team though.


The narrative on local radio is that 9 teams have won a championship after firing their coach the previous season. 

Obviously it depends on who they hire. And the way they're talking, Kevin Ollie would supposedly help secure Kevin Durant long term. If that happens, all is worthwhile whether they win or not. If they don't win and Durant leaves, the whole situation is a complete disaster. Whether or not you liked Brooks, you have to admit the riskiness of this move because of the timing (right before Durant's FA).


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

kbdullah said:


> Who are they going to get to replace him? People are talking about Ollie and Donovan, but those guys are college coaches. OKC taking a real gamble here if they don't try to bring in a guy who at least has some NBA coaching experience.


It worked out okay for Steve Kerr.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Calling it a risk presupposes that Brooks has any marginal value to begin with. I would classify him as one of the league's lower end coaches.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Westbrook is going to be incredibly difficult for any coach to take on, especially someone who never coached in the NBA a day in their life (Ollie or Donovan).
> 
> They will either become more of a pushover than Brooks was, or they will clash with Westbrook and the whole situation will blow up the offseason before Durant is a free agent.
> 
> Sounds promising.


why is the assumption that ollie would either be a pushover or clash with westbrook? ollie played for the thunder with westbrook and durant there.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Calling it a risk presupposes that Brooks has any marginal value to begin with. I would classify him as one of the league's lower end coaches.


brooks is probably the most underrated coach in the league. just because bill simmons hates the guy doesn't mean he's a terrible coach.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> why is the assumption that ollie would either be a pushover or clash with westbrook? ollie played for the thunder with westbrook and durant there.


I think there are very few coaches who demand the kind of respect to actually harness the explosiveness and competitive spirit of Westbrook while limiting his desire to break the offense and take bad shots. 

It's hard for me to imagine that a coach who has never coached an NBA game in his life could pull that off. It's just such a fine line. Maybe Westbrook will figure it out himself, or maybe Kevin Ollie will demand that kind of respect somehow, but I'm skeptical.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm thinking more along the lines of they play like an AAU team.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Word on the street is Mike Brown is looking for another 5 year deal.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> brooks is probably the most underrated coach in the league. just because bill simmons hates the guy doesn't mean he's a terrible coach.


Bill Simmons has picked apart everything Thunder related since the Harden trade. He seems to think it makes him sound smart.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

I think the Supersonics were Simmons' second team. He has pretty much always been heavy with his critique of the Thunder - ever since he called them a Mom n Pop franchise on ESPN :laugh:


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Bill Simmons has picked apart everything Thunder related since the Harden trade. He seems to think it makes him sound smart.


Though this is not untrue, what has he said that is incorrect?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BlakeJesus said:


> Though this is not untrue, what has he said that is incorrect?


My opinion is that his opinion on the James Harden trade is incorrect. That's not really the issue though. Plenty of people agree with him, but those people aren't drilling that point home constantly without any affiliation to any parties involved. Even Kevin Durant told him to let it go, and that's a good friend of Harden. 

The question is, what dog does he have in the fight?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> My opinion is that his opinion on the James Harden trade is incorrect. That's not really the issue though. Plenty of people agree with him, but those people aren't drilling that point home constantly without any affiliation to any parties involved. Even Kevin Durant told him to let it go, and that's a good friend of Harden.
> 
> The question is, what dog does he have in the fight?


To turn that right back around, Kevin Durant has a clear dog in that fight. He has to accept reality and move on, because it's his job (while also probably being happy for his friend who has gotten to blossom in a way he may not have as their 3rd option). Simmons is a writer and TV guy, he can dwell on something for the rest of his career if it sincerely interests him.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The question is, what dog does he have in the fight?


durant's his favorite player or something. he did the same thing for the one year durant was at texas and shit all over rick barnes and suddenly tons of people popped up thinking he was a terrible coach.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> brooks is probably the most underrated coach in the league. just because bill simmons hates the guy doesn't mean he's a terrible coach.


Well now I know why @RollWithEm doesn't like him.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

BlakeJesus said:


> Though this is not untrue, what has he said that is incorrect?


Simmons suggested the Thunder trade Harden after Harden's ROOKIE season. Saying his stock is probably higher than it would ever be.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> Simmons suggested the Thunder trade Harden after Harden's ROOKIE season. Saying his stock is probably higher than it would ever be.


A true archivist moment.

To be fair, this was in response to R-Stars post saying "Bill Simmons has picked apart everything Thunder related *since* the Harden trade.", and your reference is pre-Harden deal. I appreciate the point it makes, though.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BlakeJesus said:


> To turn that right back around, Kevin Durant has a clear dog in that fight. He has to accept reality and move on, because it's his job (while also probably being happy for his friend who has gotten to blossom in a way he may not have as their 3rd option). Simmons is a writer and TV guy, he can dwell on something for the rest of his career if it sincerely interests him.


Nobody is saying Simmons can't talk about whatever he wants on his own networks, but if he insists on dwelling on one subject, people are going to wonder what his angle is and what motive he would have for talking about something so often.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Nobody is saying Simmons can't talk about whatever he wants on his own networks, but if he insists on dwelling on one subject, people are going to wonder what his angle is and what motive he would have for talking about something so often.


It's interesting?

I mean really, it has everything. The build up as a new franchise in a city the league has never been to before, crafty and bold drafting allowing them to bring (now) three of the top ten players in the league on the same team, and yet the boneheaded-ness to dump one of them for (in the grand scheme of things) petty financial concerns. You couple that with the fact that they got so close to winning a title with such a young and talented team, AND the hindsight factor where you can actually envision a scenario where they lose both Durant and Westbrook when it's all said and done. 

It's interesting, it's polarizing, it's relevant for multiple different reasons...I don't know why he would need reasons beyond that to talk about it given who he is and what he does.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BlakeJesus said:


> It's interesting?
> 
> I mean really, it has everything. The build up as a new franchise in a city the league has never been to before, crafty and bold drafting allowing them to bring (now) three of the top ten players in the league on the same team, and yet the boneheaded-ness to dump one of them for (in the grand scheme of things) petty financial concerns. You couple that with the fact that they got so close to winning a title with such a young and talented team, AND the hindsight factor where you can actually envision a scenario where they lose both Durant and Westbrook when it's all said and done.
> 
> It's interesting, it's polarizing, it's relevant for multiple different reasons...I don't know why he would need reasons beyond that to talk about it given who he is and what he does.


It was interesting 3 years ago. Your opinion on the trade aside (that debate has been done to death), if you can find one writer/analyst who talks about any trade in NBA history as much as Simmons talks about the Harden trade, I'll grant your point.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

There is no possible way you can spin the Harden trade as anything other than a colossal fuck up. It's the worst trade in modern NBA history and continues to have direct implications on the championship picture. I don't know why that would not be worth talking about.

The only people who don't want to talk about it are Oklahoma City fans who don't want to think about it.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Mrs. Thang said:


> There is no possible way you can spin the Harden trade as anything other than a colossal fuck up. It's the worst trade in modern NBA history and continues to have direct implications on the championship picture. I don't know why that would not be worth talking about.
> 
> The only people who don't want to talk about it are Oklahoma City fans who don't want to think about it.


I think OKC could have netted more in return for Harden, but people who think Harden would have been a "top 10 player" in OKC based on his performance in Houston simply don't understand how becoming a superstar works. How is a ball dominant scorer supposed to become a superstar playing behind the most ball dominant player in the league in Russell Westbrook, and the highest volume scorer in the league Kevin Durant? 

There are trades for superstars that actually resulted in titles. Does anybody talk about the Kevin Garnett trade? Or the Pau Gasol trade? It's been 3 years and Houston hasn't made it out of the first round. What are we even talking about?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It was interesting 3 years ago. Your opinion on the trade aside (that debate has been done to death), if you can find one writer/analyst who talks about any trade in NBA history as much as Simmons talks about the Harden trade, I'll grant your point.


Why does he have to be everybody else though?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BlakeJesus said:


> Why does he have to be everybody else though?


Again, I'm not saying he has to be anyone else. He can talk about whatever he wants. At the same time, his audience then has the right to critique the relevance of his content. If you talk about a topic incessantly and a great deal more than any other writer/reporter, there is probably something else going on. If it was as interesting as you say, he wouldn't be the only one doing it.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think OKC could have netted more in return for Harden, *but people who think Harden would have been a "top 10 player" in OKC based on his performance in Houston simply don't understand how becoming a superstar works*. How is a ball dominant scorer supposed to become a superstar playing behind the most ball dominant player in the league in Russell Westbrook, and the highest volume scorer in the league Kevin Durant?
> 
> There are trades for superstars that actually resulted in titles. Does anybody talk about the Kevin Garnett trade? Or the Pau Gasol trade? It's been 3 years and Houston hasn't made it out of the first round. What are we even talking about?


You can't be serious. This trade might be the reason why they lose the 2nd best player in the NBA to free agency. This trade broke up one of the youngest NBA final cores in recent NBA history. They traded a future MVP candidate capable of carrying a team essentially by himself.

The fact that they didn't know what kind of player he COULD turn out to be after having him for three years is a further indictment on their incompetence.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> You can't be serious. This trade might be the reason why they lose the 2nd best player in the NBA to free agency. This trade broke up one of the youngest NBA final cores in recent NBA history. They traded a future MVP candidate capable of carrying a team essentially by himself.
> 
> The fact that they didn't know what kind of player he COULD turn out to be after having him for three years is a further indictment on their incompetence.


These arguments have been done to death and refuted a thousand times so I won't go down that road again. 

Out of curiousity, what do you envision James Harden's statline being playing next to Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant, had he not been traded?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> These arguments have been done to death and refuted a thousand times so I won't go down that road again.
> 
> Out of curiousity, what do you envision James Harden's statline being playing next to Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant, had he not been traded?


I think he could have averaged 25/5/5 with Durant out. Also, it would have kept Durant from rushing back and the Thnder would have been in the playoffs this season.

Also, the Thunder likely would have a championship at this point and the Durant talk you will endure all next season/offseason would be null and void.

But hey, they saved 3 million bucks.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> I think he could have averaged 25/5/5 with Durant out. Also, it would have kept Durant from rushing back and the Thnder would have been in the playoffs this season.
> 
> Also, the Thunder likely would have a championship at this point and the Durant talk you will endure all next season/offseason would be null and void.
> 
> But hey, they saved 3 million bucks.


I didn't ask you about how Harden could do without Durant. I asked you about how he'd do *with* Durant and *with* Westbrook, at the same time. 

This is how sunken your position is. You can't even answer the question about how Harden would play next to Durant *and* Westbrook at the same time, and you want to criticize the GM who attempted to collect assets to balance the roster rather than stacking perimeter scorers video game style and abandoning any semblance of a frontcourt or interior defense.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I didn't ask you about how Harden could do without Durant. I asked you about how he'd do *with* Durant and *with* Westbrook, at the same time.
> 
> This is how sunken your position is. You can't even answer the question about how Harden would play next to Durant *and* Westbrook at the same time, and you want to criticize the GM who attempted to collect assets to balance the roster rather than stacking perimeter scorers video game style and abandoning any semblance of a frontcourt or interior defense.


I did answer your question.

It was that part where I mentioned CHAMPIONSHIP. 

DId you actually say balance the roster? On a NBA finals team? Is this the straws Thunder fans grab at right now?

I think at this point, you are so delusional about this trade, you are hanging on to some notion about Harden not being Houston Rocket James Harden on the Thunder...You are right. He would be like James Worthy on the Lakers.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The narrative on local radio is that 9 teams have won a championship after firing their coach the previous season.
> 
> Obviously it depends on who they hire. And the way they're talking, Kevin Ollie would supposedly help secure Kevin Durant long term. If that happens, all is worthwhile whether they win or not. If they don't win and Durant leaves, the whole situation is a complete disaster. Whether or not you liked Brooks, you have to admit the riskiness of this move because of the timing (right before Durant's FA).


Literally this is the part that is strange. Kevin is going to do what's best for him. Cap going up, he's going to get the most money from anyone. His Nike deal is incredible. So if you're a coach, how can you take this job and feel any sense of security in KD staying. Let's say Westbrook and Ibaka get hurt again (knock on wood). Maybe dude says, I should go East, easier for me to get to the Finals. Then what? 

I feel they should have bit the bullet and extended Brooks another year or two. It would have been better than this. The pressure on next year's coach is going to be *astronomical*.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The thing is, Harden clearly felt he was a MAX player and OKC wasn't going to pay him that (5 years/80 million vs. 4 years/54 million). I think it worked out well for Harden. He's going to get another big deal after that and he got to blossom into an all-NBA player, which he always felt was his ability. I don't like his style, but I can appreciate James going for what he wanted. The real folly was Washington not trading Bradley Beal for Harden.

I think for a lot of people in the media, they wanted to see Lebron and company vs. Durant and company in the Finals for years to come (ala Bird/Magic), but because of the Harden trade that never got to happen, so they feel cheated. Still no guarantee OKC would have won the title though.


P.S. Everyone wants to change the Thunder offense, but how do you do that when Westbrook is so ball dominant? That's one of the reasons he's so hard to stop. Seems that's going to be a HUGE challenge for a rookie NBA coach. Steph Curry is a totally different type of player who can lay on and off the ball.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> I did answer your question.
> 
> It was that part where I mentioned CHAMPIONSHIP.
> 
> ...


You still didn't answer my original question, but I understand why. It's not a question that makes your point of view look viable. Also, Who is Kareem in the Worthy comparison? What about Magic? We aren't talking about a balanced trio that brings different skills to the table. 

Let's talk history. Historically, is there any superstar trio made up entirely of perimeter scorers? I can't think of any. Maybe you or someone else can chime and show me all the championships won when you put three superstars who do almost exactly the same thing on the court together, accounting for so much of the salary cap that the frontcourt and interior defense are bankrupt. Maybe there is a team that's been successful with that model. I'm no history buff.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Well now I know why @RollWithEm doesn't like him.


I don't like him because he doesn't have an offense.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I didn't ask you about how Harden could do without Durant. I asked you about how he'd do *with* Durant and *with* Westbrook, at the same time.
> 
> This is how sunken your position is. You can't even answer the question about how Harden would play next to Durant *and* Westbrook at the same time


The same way they played together on the way to the Finals?



> and you want to criticize the GM who attempted to collect assets to balance the roster rather than stacking perimeter scorers video game style and abandoning any semblance of a frontcourt or interior defense.


Yes. That is a good thing to criticize. Trading Harden for Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb balanced their front-court? That doesn't make any sense. They traded a really good player for bad players at the same position and some draft picks they turned into middling bigs years down the road. 

Presti had a winning hand but he was too afraid to push his chips into the middle to play it. Even if Harden had his eyes on the door, they still had him under contract for another year. Through some combination of ego, fear, and hubris, Presti made a move that significantly lowered the championship potential of a bonafied title contender just so he could come out slightly better on the backside of an undesirable asset exchange. That's unforgiveable and I don't understand why OKC fans have suckered themselves into buying it. He made a title contender worse!

This also ignores the whole thing about how they were in this mess in the first place because they refused to amnesty the $9.4 million of dead weight that had just cost them the finals. How did they not come out of that series thinking "Hmmmm, maybe the answer here is more of KD at the 4"?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

It sucks because I have been calling on them to upgrade the surrounding cast for a long time and when they finally do, they get rocked by injuries. IF they can stay reasonably healthy next year...that team is stacked.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Mrs. Thang said:


> The same way they played together on the way to the Finals?


So they were going to pay James Harden the max to be a 6th man? Is there any precedent for that? I was all for keeping Harden in the 6th man role, like Ginobili, but he was clearly too big for that role and I can't blame him for wanting what we was worth. The problem was that he wasn't worth that on the Thunder. It's like paying a doctor a doctor's salary to sweep the floors. If you pay a guy the max, you want him to do max work. In order to keep Harden and get production out of him that matched his max salary, they would have had to part with Westbrook. To this day, I still wonder if Presti made the right decision in choosing Westbrook over Harden. But I never question whether he had to make the decision. You don't pay a guy the max to be an 18ppg perimeter scorer and mediocre defender. 



Mrs. Thang said:


> Yes. That is a good thing to criticize. Trading Harden for Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb balanced their front-court? That doesn't make any sense. They traded a really good player for bad players at the same position and some draft picks they turned into middling bigs years down the road.


The actual trade didn't balance their frontcourt, but the available salary allowed them to fill their frontcourt. It allowed them to sign Ibaka and draft Adams, who were their starting PF/C this season before Kanter came along. 



Mrs. Thang said:


> This also ignores the whole thing about how they were in this mess in the first place because they refused to amnesty the $9.4 million of dead weight that had just cost them the finals. How did they not come out of that series thinking "Hmmmm, maybe the answer here is more of KD at the 4"?


I agree that they should have amnestied Perkins long before they traded him, but that trade netted them Enes Kanter and Augustine, so it worked out.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

good points made all around, but all I know is, if OKC doesn't get a title within the next couple of years, they will end up as the biggest disappointment in NBA history.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think OKC could have netted more in return for Harden, but people who think Harden would have been a "top 10 player" in OKC based on his performance in Houston simply don't understand how becoming a superstar works. How is a ball dominant scorer supposed to become a superstar playing behind the most ball dominant player in the league in Russell Westbrook, and the highest volume scorer in the league Kevin Durant?
> 
> There are trades for superstars that actually resulted in titles. Does anybody talk about the Kevin Garnett trade? Or the Pau Gasol trade? It's been 3 years and Houston hasn't made it out of the first round. What are we even talking about?


_Did anyone talk about the Pau Gasol trade??_ Gregg Popovich, among others, LOUDLY whined about needing a trade committee when Memphis traded Pau Gasol. Memphis' front office were national pariahs. The reason no one talks about it now is because the trade directly netted Marc Gasol (who none of the critics knew was good) and indirectly allowed Memphis to get Zach Randolph. But when it happened, you had NBA geeks like Jamel laughing about how Memphis traded Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown and that Jerry West (who was no longer with the organization at that point) was somehow pulling the strings as a double agent for the Lakers.

Oklahoma City traded James Harden for one season of Kevin Martin and a sack of bubblegum.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

JT said:


> good points made all around, but all I know is, if OKC doesn't get a title within the next couple of years, they will end up as the biggest disappointment in NBA history.


If they keep Durant and Westbrook and don't win after a few healthy years, I agree.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Thunder got Adams and McGary from the Harden trade as well. The consensus seems to be that everyone feels the Thunder would have definitely won the title. Just too many variables to say that would have happened. I mean everyone thought the Heat would win 4 titles and they barely won 2. 

Was it a good trade? I'd lean towards no, but the book is not closed on them just yet. And if they only win one title, still doesn't matter. Winning one is hard enough. Lebron has lost three times in the finals and he's the best player in the world.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

GNG said:


> Oklahoma City traded James Harden for one season of Kevin Martin and a sack of bubblegum.


I think it's possible that they could have netted more for Harden, and I have no problem with people who make that argument. It's really just the idea that stacking 3 max contract superstars with heavily overlapping skillsets while disregarding the rest of the roster can somehow equate to championship(s). It's truly a video game mentality.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

The only video game mentality is the idea that a max player has to put up max numbers. If playing Harden off the bench results in a super efficient 20 ppg that is not bad! They made the finals doing that and he's only gotten better! They absolutely should have risked the chance of loosing him for nothing if it meant they had him for one more year to try to win it all. Teams at every level of basketball are getting better by eschewing traditional positional roles and just putting the 5 most talented guys on the floor they can find.

Or, to tie this thing in a bow and take it back to the original topic, why not just play them all together and get a new coach who's offense can accommodate more than two guys going one-on-one all the time.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

We've seen what happens when owners give max contracts to players incapable of max production. It handcuffs teams from doing anything else with the rest of thei roster. 

Harden was capable, but not with OKC. If there was no salary cap and owners had bottomless pockets, sure, pay everybody infinite money. Unfortunately, a max contract to one player means less resources elsewhere. So when your resources overlap and you run other parts of your roster dry, it won't lead to good results. 

In 2012, when they made the finals, they had Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka all making less than 5 million per year. It's easy to say just give them all max contracts, but it doesn't quite work like that.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You still didn't answer my original question, but I understand why. It's not a question that makes your point of view look viable. Also, Who is Kareem in the Worthy comparison? What about Magic? We aren't talking about a balanced trio that brings different skills to the table.
> 
> Let's talk history. Historically, is there any superstar trio made up entirely of perimeter scorers? I can't think of any. Maybe you or someone else can chime and show me all the championships won when you put three superstars who do almost exactly the same thing on the court together, accounting for so much of the salary cap that the frontcourt and interior defense are bankrupt. Maybe there is a team that's been successful with that model. I'm no history buff.


How many big three trios have there been that fit this description?


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Sir Patchwork said:


> We've seen what happens when owners give max contracts to players incapable of max production. It handcuffs teams from doing anything else with the rest of thei roster.


Harden is capable of max production. This point, while true, is a total strawman. It's completely irrelevant.



> Harden was capable, but not with OKC. If there was no salary cap and owners had bottomless pockets, sure, pay everybody infinite money. Unfortunately, a max contract to one player means less resources elsewhere. So when your resources overlap and you run other parts of your roster dry, it won't lead to good results.


We aren't talking hypotheticals here. That core DID lead to good results. They almost won a championship and their four best players were all still improving. This isn't a philosophical exercise in how to build a winning team. They HAD a winning team. For all the talk here about how they had to get pieces that fit together better, the pieces that supposedly didn't fit were a better team! What are we even talking about?



> In 2012, when they made the finals, they had Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka all making less than 5 million per year. It's easy to say just give them all max contracts, but it doesn't quite work like that.


It does work. Durant, Westbrook, Harden at his new number, Ibaka's extension, and the rest of their 2014 roster would have come in just under the luxury tax. Since the cap and tax thresholds are rising faster than the salary escalators, they would even be getting more breathing room every year. This of course would have required amnestying Perkins.

My point is still that even if Harden would have left, they still should have kept him to try to win a championship. Look at it this way: would you trade Steve Adams, Mitch McGary, and Jeremy Lamb right now for one year of Harden next season? Of course you would. You wouldn't even think twice. The whole point is to win championships.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Mrs. Thang said:


> We aren't talking hypotheticals here. That core DID lead to good results. They almost won a championship and their four best players were all still improving. This isn't a philosophical exercise in how to build a winning team. They HAD a winning team. For all the talk here about how they had to get pieces that fit together better, the pieces that supposedly didn't fit were a better team! What are we even talking about?


You say they _had_ a winning team like that disappeared the next season. OKC won _more_ games the next season with their best point differential (+9.2) in the franchise’s history. They were better than they ever were. Is there any evidence that Harden in his 6th man role made them anything more than marginally better than Kevin Martin did in the same role? The team didn’t skip a beat without Harden and still hasn’t to this day when healthy. Reggie Jackson did fine as 6th man scoring punch once Martin was gone. 

I think the monkey in the room is that the perceived failures of the franchise are because of Harden’s departure, when in reality it’s been because of injuries. When healthy, they haven’t missed Harden one bit. I wish we could have traded Harden for a clean bill of health. This wouldn't even be a discussion. 

I think we've circled around enough times to where this is getting tedious. I understand your arguments, I just disagree with them. I hope you understand where I'm coming from if nothing else.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You say they _had_ a winning team like that disappeared the next season. OKC won _more_ games the next season with their best point differential (+9.2) in the franchise’s history. They were better than they ever were. Is there any evidence that Harden in his 6th man role made them anything more than marginally better than Kevin Martin did in the same role? The team didn’t skip a beat without Harden and still hasn’t to this day when healthy. Reggie Jackson did fine as 6th man scoring punch once Martin was gone.


Okay, so lets say Harden never gets traded, Martin's pissing time away over in Houston and Howard is still blaming the media for his problems. What makes you think scoring is the only thing Harden would provide for OKC? He understood during his time in OKC that he had to be more than just a scorer. He was a decent playmaker and played more team oriented basketball before he became the number one option in Houston, Martin on the other hand could only provide one thing consistently on a nightly basis and we all know what that is.

Unless scoring was all OKC needed to get better, I see no reason as to why Harden remaining in OKC would have made OKC better all around than having Martin there.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

GNG said:


> _Did anyone talk about the Pau Gasol trade??_ Gregg Popovich, among others, LOUDLY whined about needing a trade committee when Memphis traded Pau Gasol. Memphis' front office were national pariahs. The reason no one talks about it now is because the trade directly netted Marc Gasol (who none of the critics knew was good) and indirectly allowed Memphis to get Zach Randolph. But when it happened, you had NBA geeks like Jamel laughing about how Memphis traded Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown and that Jerry West (who was no longer with the organization at that point) was somehow pulling the strings as a double agent for the Lakers.
> 
> Oklahoma City traded James Harden for one season of Kevin Martin and a sack of bubblegum.


I never said shit about Jerry West pulling strings and it was Kwame, a felon, a retired player and a second rounder. Don't act like Memphis knew they were getting a all-star center back.

PS, Thanks for the rings. Must suck dealing with Marc Gasol being your big franchise coup that netted you some 50 win seasons.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I never said shit about Jerry West pulling strings and it was Kwame, a felon, a retired player and a second rounder. Don't act like Memphis knew they were getting a all-star center back.
> 
> PS, Thanks for the rings. Must suck dealing with Marc Gasol being your big franchise coup that netted you some 50 win seasons.


Like I said, Jamel is good for some yuks every once in awhile, but he was a basketball moron back then and still is, and NBA history will say that Memphis bettered itself with the trade and that the Memphis front office personnel were better talent evaluators than some buttlick on the Internet whose claim to fame around here is crying about Ron changing his thread titles and getting fired over what he posted about his boss on MySpace back in like 2006 or something.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

PS - Remember when you said Mike Conley was the worst contract in the NBA and now national writers are calling him the biggest bargain in the league who's going to get maxed out next offseason? Jamel? Remember?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

GNG said:


> PS - Remember when you said Mike Conley was the worst contract in the NBA and now national writers are calling him the biggest bargain in the league who's going to get maxed out next offseason? Jamel? Remember?


Yes. Remember when said Conley was drafted by said Grizzlies over Marc Gasol? Even though they knew Gasol was a stud? Remember when YOU criticized the pau trade at the time? The Grizzlies got lucky Marc was a stud. They didn't know what the fuck they got. 

Remember when you tried to justify drafting Thabeet and signing Brian Cardinal?porn player?

That MySpace thing was hilarious. Here I am interviewing for a job making $150k a year and recalling getting fired over one where my AGI was $32k for 8 months of work. 

PS thanks for the rings.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> There is no possible way you can spin the Harden trade as anything other than a colossal fuck up. It's the worst trade in modern NBA history and continues to have direct implications on the championship picture. I don't know why that would not be worth talking about.
> 
> The only people who don't want to talk about it are Oklahoma City fans who don't want to think about it.


Except it absolutely does not. Westbrook, Harden and Durant don't work. People point to the year they went to the finals like it some how proves they would have been a dynasty. They won one game against Miami. Harden started taking 7 extra shots the next year Where would those shots come from?

Where would Ibaka be? Simmons says they could have kept both without elaborating that they would have had to find someone to eat Perkins contract. With the years left on that deal, it wasn't happening.


You're all amazing armchair GM's when you have years to sit back and tweak reality and see how players develop. Bottom line is, throw James Harden back on the Thunder and one of he, Westbrook or Durant would have wanted out because the idea of a ball dominant 1, 2 and 3 is so ridiculously asinine I don't even know where to begin to explain why it wouldn't work.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You still didn't answer my original question, but I understand why. It's not a question that makes your point of view look viable. Also, Who is Kareem in the Worthy comparison? What about Magic? We aren't talking about a balanced trio that brings different skills to the table.
> 
> Let's talk history. Historically, is there any superstar trio made up entirely of perimeter scorers? I can't think of any. *Maybe you or someone else can chime and show me all the championships won when you put three superstars who do almost exactly the same thing on the court together, accounting for so much of the salary cap that the frontcourt and interior defense are bankrupt. Maybe there is a team that's been successful with that model. I'm no history buff*.


You wont find many teams if any. Brooks got a raw deal and he's laying of the sword for the failures of the GM. Presti has been flat out terrible and the coach is getting all the heat for it. This is why im starting to hate the NBA. No passion from the players and coaches being recycled every single year. 

Now the media is talking up a soon to be rookie head coach in Ollie because he's friends with Durant, really? How about Presti has gave away every ounce of young talent for scrap in return....


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

R-Star said:


> Except it absolutely does not. Westbrook, Harden and Durant don't work. People point to the year they went to the finals like it some how proves they would have been a dynasty. They won one game against Miami. Harden started taking 7 extra shots the next year Where would those shots come from?
> 
> Where would Ibaka be? Simmons says they could have kept both without elaborating that they would have had to find someone to eat Perkins contract. With the years left on that deal, it wasn't happening.
> 
> ...


Real shit......


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Ollie is not taking the job. Because he knows Durant has too much leverage in this (and he's personally going through a divorce).


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Yes. Remember when said Conley was drafted by said Grizzlies over Marc Gasol? Even though they knew Gasol was a stud? Remember when YOU criticized the pau trade at the time? The Grizzlies got lucky Marc was a stud. They didn't know what the fuck they got.
> 
> Remember when you tried to justify drafting Thabeet and signing Brian Cardinal?porn player?
> 
> ...


It's fun riling you up. 

I can't believe you were so wrong about something, Jamel. You were wrong about something!


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

HKF said:


> Ollie is not taking the job. Because he knows Durant has too much leverage in this (and he's personally going through a divorce).


I have a friend that's a UConn grad (and still hooked into the program). According to him the scuttlebutt there is that the custody issues associated with the divorce are going to keep him on the job.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Except it absolutely does not. Westbrook, Harden and Durant don't work. People point to the year they went to the finals like it some how proves they would have been a dynasty. They won one game against Miami. Harden started taking 7 extra shots the next year Where would those shots come from?
> 
> Where would Ibaka be? Simmons says they could have kept both without elaborating that they would have had to find someone to eat Perkins contract. With the years left on that deal, it wasn't happening.
> 
> ...



Nah, I am going to go with making it to the NBA finals proves it works. Unless you want to say that only winning a championship validates a team? You can go there if you want but don't be wishy washy with it in the future.

People like you want to have it both ways...you want to say Houston James Harden would not have happened in Okc then transpose Houston James Harden on to Okc as proof it would not work. Kind of hypocritical.

Can anyone show me any evidence before Harden was traded that suggested he was unhappy in Oklahoma? There were no rumors of his unhappiness to my knowledge. There were no rumors suggesting he thought he should be a number one option. Heck, even you yourself thought he would fail in that role after the trade.

Whatever the case may be in your speculation. You do not *PREEMPTIVELY* break up one of the youngest NBA finals core on the notion that there may be problems in the future either in the locker room or with the salary cap.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Nah, I am going to go with making it to the NBA finals proves it works. Unless you want to say that only winning a championship validates a team? You can go there if you want but don't be wishy washy with it in the future.
> 
> People like you want to have it both ways...you want to say Houston James Harden would not have happened in Okc then transpose Houston James Harden on to Okc as proof it would not work. Kind of hypocritical.
> 
> ...


I'll ask again, where do the extra 7 shots come from?

While we're at it, please tell me the trade they would have made for Perkins. Keep in mind this trade would have had to happen _before_ the playoffs even happened seeing as he would have had to be traded for expirings if OKC wanted to keep both Harden and Ibaka?

No?

I didn't think so.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I'll ask again, where do the extra 7 shots come from?
> 
> While we're at it, please tell me the trade they would have made for Perkins. Keep in mind this trade would have had to happen _before_ the playoffs even happened seeing as he would have had to be traded for expirings if OKC wanted to keep both Harden and Ibaka?
> 
> ...


Year 1 ... No trade needed because Harden is still on rookie deal.
Year 2 ... You pay the luxury tax because your team is the real deal.
Year 3 ... You give Philly a 1st to take Perkins.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Not sure why people are comparing Harden's numbers from his OKC days to now. Obviously he wouldn't have the same number of shots, but he still has the talent. That is what is important. He is simply better than Kevin Martin and Dion Waiters. Even if he doesn't get enough shots to lead the league in scoring.

Also not understanding the three perimeter guys argument. They proved they could make the finals. Why are we assuming that couldn't have happened again? They need to trade Harden so they can have a more conventional lineup with Kendrick Perkins? Really? And no I don't know exactly who would have been their center had they gotten rid of Perkins, but I will take Harden and a big off the scrap pile over Kevin Martin/Jeremy Lamb and Perkins/Adams. No question. Perkins put up 2 points and 6 rebounds the series they lost to the Spurs. Adams put up 5 and 5...yeah I think they could have got that somewhere else.

And the ironic thing about the money argument is that they are now paying the tax anyway for guys like Dion Waiters instead of for Harden.

But all that said, it's still possible they might have won a title had they been healthy. And they do have a chance next year. The team is loaded now that the owners are willing to pay the tax. But I think the chances would have been better had they bit the bullet earlier.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Year 1 ... No trade needed because Harden is still on rookie deal.
> Year 2 ... You pay the luxury tax because your team is the real deal.
> Year 3 ... You give Philly a 1st to take Perkins.


You aren't answering the questions. 

Where are his extra 7 shots coming from?

And I love how it's so easy for fans to just say "You pay the luxury tax!" when you're probably a guy who only buys things on sale. It's millions and millions of dollars. No, they don't have to pay the luxury tax.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Not sure why people are comparing Harden's numbers from his OKC days to now. Obviously he wouldn't have the same number of shots, but he still has the talent. That is what is important. He is simply better than Kevin Martin and Dion Waiters. Even if he doesn't get enough shots to lead the league in scoring.
> 
> Also not understanding the three perimeter guys argument. They proved they could make the finals. Why are we assuming that couldn't have happened again? *They need to trade Harden so they can have a more conventional lineup with Kendrick Perkins? Really?* And no I don't know exactly who would have been their center had they gotten rid of Perkins, but I will take Harden and a big off the scrap pile over Kevin Martin/Jeremy Lamb and Perkins/Adams. No question. Perkins put up 2 points and 6 rebounds the series they lost to the Spurs. Adams put up 5 and 5...yeah I think they could have got that somewhere else.
> 
> ...


No, not really. Either I don't understand whats going on here, or more likely, you don't know what we're talking about. Not one person said they should trade Harden so they could keep Perkins in the lineup. That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Nah, I am going to go with making it to the NBA finals proves it works. Unless you want to say that only winning a championship validates a team? You can go there if you want but don't be wishy washy with it in the future.
> 
> People like you want to have it both ways...you want to say Houston James Harden would not have happened in Okc then transpose Houston James Harden on to Okc as proof it would not work. Kind of hypocritical.
> 
> ...


That's because you're wrong....

*Once Harden was locked into a role on the bench, meanwhile, his minutes fluctuated due to the dynamics of the game as well as the way Brooks handled his rotations. In Game 1 of the Finals, Harden (22) played fewer minutes than Derek Fisher (25). To add insult to injury, Fisher and Kendrick Perkins reportedly had to calm down Harden after the game and sell him on the importance of sacrifice for the greater good, as if the entire team wasn’t already sacrificing so that Brooks could keep his two beloved veterans on the floor in complete defiance of basketball logic.*

http://basketball.realgm.com/analys...Revisionist-History-Of-The-James-Harden-Trade


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> You aren't answering the questions.
> 
> Where are his extra 7 shots coming from?
> 
> And I love how it's so easy for fans to just say "You pay the luxury tax!" when you're probably a guy who only buys things on sale. It's millions and millions of dollars. No, they don't have to pay the luxury tax.


The 7 shots thing is just simply being ignorant. It would be like trying to rationalize trading Durant because of Westbrooks FGAs without him. His role with Okc and Houston are different. So would his shot attempts.

Also, you don't buy a Ferrari then complain about the cost of maintenance.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

R-Star said:


> Except it absolutely does not. Westbrook, Harden and Durant don't work. People point to the year they went to the finals like it some how proves they would have been a dynasty. They won one game against Miami. Harden started taking 7 extra shots the next year Where would those shots come from?


They don't work, but they made the Finals. They can't coexist, but they coexisted their way to the Finals. There is real actual evidence that they worked very well together, on account of them scoring more points than their opponents enough times to make the Finals, but apparently they absolutely do not work... ok, what does "work" even mean then? 



> Where would Ibaka be? Simmons says they could have kept both without elaborating that they would have had to find someone to eat Perkins contract. With the years left on that deal, it wasn't happening.


Perkins was amnesty eligible, they could have kept him for the 2012/2013 season (remember Harden was traded with a full year left on his rookie deal) and then traded him or amnestied him starting 2013/2014 without ever paying the luxury tax. Even with Ibaka's extension and Harden's new deal, they would have never paid the luxury tax if the amnestied Perkins.



> You're all amazing armchair GM's when you have years to sit back and tweak reality and see how players develop.





Mrs. Thang said:


> OKC got very good value on paper (more than Orlando got for Dwight Howard!) but that doesn't mean it was a good deal for them. The downgrade from Harden to Martin this year isn't huge, but a team that has realistic expectations of winning a championship should never make a move that makes them worse. I like Jeremy Lamb but the downgrade to him next year will be significant.


At the time of the trade, I overrated Martin/Lamb and underrated Harden and STILL thought it was a bad trade. With hindsight it looks catastrophic.

The common refrain from everybody defending this horrible trade is that Harden didn't make them that much better because his "skills overlapped" or something. Which, again, going back to the original point of the thread, if you have a team for which adding a borderline league-MVP at a position of need doesn't make you more than marginally better, then you have a horrible coach.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> The 7 shots thing is just simply being ignorant. It would be like trying to rationalize trading Durant because of Westbrooks FGAs without him. His role with Okc and Houston are different. So would his shot attempts.
> 
> Also, you don't buy a Ferrari then complain about the cost of maintenance.


What the **** does that even mean? They literally chose not to buy the Ferrari. That doesn't even make a tiny bit of sense.

And you've seen how much Durant shoots when Westbrook is out, or worse yet, how much Russ shoots with Durant out. To act like if Harden stayed he'd be cool coming off the bench and shooting 10 shots a game when hes averaging 18 right now is just ignorant man.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

R-Star said:


> No, not really. Either I don't understand whats going on here, or more likely, you don't know what we're talking about. Not one person said they should trade Harden so they could keep Perkins in the lineup. That doesn't even make sense.


I was talking about the argument that Patch was making about the "three perimeter player" lineup and that they needed to balance out the front court. Well the front court post Harden was Perkins and Steven Adams. Could have kept Harden and got the same type of production from different bigs.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> They don't work, but they made the Finals. They can't coexist, but they coexisted their way to the Finals. There is real actual evidence that they worked very well together, on account of them scoring more points than their opponents enough times to make the Finals, but apparently they absolutely do not work... ok, what does "work" even mean then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tell me how many minutes per game, and how many shots per game each of the 3 players would have then please. Also, to piggy back someone elses point, explain why their win total went up the next year.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I was talking about the argument that Patch was making about the "three perimeter player" lineup and that they needed to balance out the front court. Well the front court post Harden was Perkins and Steven Adams. Could have kept Harden and got the same type of production from different bigs.


The front court was Ibaka and Perkins, just as it was prior to the trade. Adams was drafted a year after the trade to my recollection.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Tell me how many minutes per game, and how many shots per game each of the 3 players would have then please. Also, to piggy back someone elses point, explain why their win total went up the next year.



Because a bunch of 22/23 year old players improved. This ish is not rocket science. 

Now explain why they have never had the same post season success?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

R-Star said:


> The front court was Ibaka and Perkins, just as it was prior to the trade. Adams was drafted a year after the trade to my recollection.


I guess I should have specified I meant the center position. But regardless the point stands. I can't believe they couldn't have replaced the production they got from Perkins/Adams while still retaining Harden as a massive upgrade over Martin/Lamb.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Because a bunch of 22/23 year old players improved. This ish is not rocket science.
> 
> Now explain why they have never had the same post season success?


Clearly because of injury issues? And the fact going to the finals every season is anything but a certainty like you're acting like it is?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I guess I should have specified I meant the center position. But regardless the point stands. I can't believe they couldn't have replaced the production they got from Perkins/Adams while still retaining Harden as a massive upgrade over Martin/Lamb.


For the role he played for the team, he wasn't really a massive upgrade over Martin.

Lamb I'll agree on. He's really disappointed and I thought he'd turn into a much better pro.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Clearly because of injury issues? And the fact going to the finals every season is anything but a certainty like you're acting like it is?


Soooooo...it seems you might have found out where them 7 shots could come from when NEEDED.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> nice move for the thunder. martin expires and they have lamb and picks to restock on cheap salaries.


those were my thoughts at the time of the trade and they still are how i feel about it now. they got a very good one year replacement in martin, what seemed to be a good long term replacement in lamb, and picks to add more talent across the roster. just because lamb didn't pan out and those picks didn't turn into high impact players doesn't mean their thinking at the time was wrong.

to be fair though, memphisx was making the same argument back then that he's making now that the thunder were too close to winning it all to break things up by trading harden. 

it's just unfortunate that we'll never know what would have happened without the injuries to westbrook, ibaka, and durant every postseason since the trade.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Soooooo...it seems you might have found out where them 7 shots could come from when NEEDED.


You're kidding right?

"Hey James, you'll stay on the bench taking 10 shots a game, BUT....... if someone gets injured you can take their shots."

Reality at its best.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Also not understanding the three perimeter guys argument. They proved they could make the finals. Why are we assuming that couldn't have happened again? They need to trade Harden so they can have a more conventional lineup with Kendrick Perkins? Really? And no I don't know exactly who would have been their center had they gotten rid of Perkins, but I will take Harden and a big off the scrap pile over Kevin Martin/Jeremy Lamb and Perkins/Adams. No question. Perkins put up 2 points and 6 rebounds the series they lost to the Spurs. Adams put up 5 and 5...yeah I think they could have got that somewhere else.


The point I made earlier is that Harden was on a rookie deal. All contributions on a rookie deal are basically found money. Once you have to pay someone what they're worth, that's when you need to think about how they fit because you have finite resources. You can't pay everybody on your roster the max, so you have to ask yourself if the guy is worth to your team what he is worth on the open market. In Harden's case, the answer is no. 

Harden wasn't draining resources on a rookie deal. Tying up 30 million of a 70 million dollar salary cap on three truly elite perimeter players who have overlapping skillsets is no big deal. Spending 60 million on those same guys is going to be a problem.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Also, people can rip Perkins all they want, but they fail to realize that they never would have beat Memphis in any series without Perkins, Harden or no Harden. And they've played them in 3 playoff series' over the past 5 years or so. You're simply not going to be able to compete with Gasol and Randolph with guys like Thabeet and some random D-League center, which is about what they would have had at center.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Also, people can rip Perkins all they want, but they fail to realize that they never would have beat Memphis in any series without Perkins, Harden or no Harden. And they've played them in 3 playoff series' over the past 5 years or so. You're simply not going to be able to compete with Gasol and Randolph with guys like Thabeet and some random D-League center, which is about what they would have had at center.


But Harden puts up numbers and numbers are all the counts, right?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

R-Star said:


> But Harden puts up numbers and numbers are all the counts, right?


OKC obviously needed another 25pgg scorer pretty badly.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Soooooo...it seems you might have found out where them 7 shots could come from when NEEDED.


Your arguement is to build a championship team that can withstand a injury to its top two players? I'd rather build a team that supports my top two players when healthy.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Also, people can rip Perkins all they want, but they fail to realize that they never would have beat Memphis in any series without Perkins, Harden or no Harden. And they've played them in 3 playoff series' over the past 5 years or so. You're simply not going to be able to compete with Gasol and Randolph with guys like Thabeet and some random D-League center, which is about what they would have had at center.


They could have got a guy on the cheap like Dalembert or Jermaine O'Neal and been fine. And with Harden on board do they draft Roberson? Or do they take a big? Like the one picked right after Roberson...Gobert. No way to know but to say it would be Thabeet and a D Leaguer is a stretch.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Also, people can rip Perkins all they want, but they fail to realize that they never would have beat Memphis in any series without Perkins, Harden or no Harden. And they've played them in 3 playoff series' over the past 5 years or so. You're simply not going to be able to compete with Gasol and Randolph with guys like Thabeet and some random D-League center, which is about what they would have had at center.


Memphis beat Okc with Perkins on the team but let's not let facts get in the way of bulshitting yourself.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Perkins is basically some random D-league center. This is so fucking stupid. We're talking about how they don't miss James Harden, but Kendrick Perkins is indispensable.

It's ironic that the people throwing out the snide "but numbers are all that counts" comments are the ones who are obsessing over how many shot attempts each player gets per game.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Memphis beat Okc with Perkins on the team but let's not let facts get in the way of bulshitting yourself.


They're 1-2 in series' against OKC with Perkins. Memphis would be 3-0 if OKC didn't have Perkins in those series'.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Perkins is basically some random D-league center. This is so fucking stupid. We're talking about how they don't miss James Harden, but Kendrick Perkins is indispensable.


Perkins was pretty terrible in most match-ups, but had clear value at times. My defense of Perkins is just in response to the idea that if they had ditched Perkins and possibly Ibaka in favor of keeping Harden they would have 17 championships, when in reality, they weren't beating Memphis in any series where they had to work the waiver wire for their entire interior defense and rebounding needs. This concept was true against any team, but especially true against a team with two dominant post players. 



Mrs. Thang said:


> It's ironic that the people throwing out the snide "but numbers are all that counts" comments are the ones who are obsessing over how many shot attempts each player gets per game.


It's not about numbers, but these concepts aren't being understood by those who see what Harden is in Houston and somehow think that can be copied and pasted into OKC the exact same way. 

It shouldn't be that hard to understand that Chris Paul does not hold the same value to a team that already has Stephen Curry and John Wall as he does to a team without any starting PG. This concept should be blatantly obvious without the need to quantify it with numbers.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> They could have got a guy on the cheap like Dalembert or Jermaine O'Neal and been fine. And with Harden on board do they draft Roberson? Or do they take a big? Like the one picked right after Roberson...Gobert. No way to know but to say it would be Thabeet and a D Leaguer is a stretch.


"They could have drafted Rudy Gobert."

Again, it's easy to play computer chair GM a few years after the draft. Gobert was drafted 27th in what was called the weakest draft of the decade. No one though Gobert would turn out to what looks to be the next great defensive center.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Perkins is basically some random D-league center. This is so fucking stupid. We're talking about how they don't miss James Harden, but Kendrick Perkins is indispensable.
> 
> It's ironic that the people throwing out the snide "but numbers are all that counts" comments are the ones who are obsessing over how many shot attempts each player gets per game.


Why don't you tell me how many shot attempts Durant, Westbrook and Harden would all have? Why is that so difficult for you?

Also, what you posted makes absolutely no sense. I made fun of people who act like stats are all the counts and never take defense and intangibles into account. You reply by saying it's ironic to ask how many shots someone would be taking? That's not ironic in the least. You realize that, correct?


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

17.3 16.4 and 18.7


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> 17.3 16.4 and 18.7


So 3 players combine for literally 60% of the teams shots, and leaving 34.4 shots for the rest of the team? Ibaka is currently taking 12.3. Kanter is averaging 13.3. Waiters 12.9. So even with just those 3 they currently take over the shots you're allowing to remain.

So lets say you reply by saying "Obviously Ibaka and Kanter will take less shots". All well and good. You've created a team that has 3 perimeter focused scoring options, and neutered Ibaka and Kanter (or whoever would have been there in his place). You basically defend these guys on the perimeter, leave a guy to double when need be, and have a defensive big in the paint to challenge Durant, Harden, Westbrook if/when they beat their defender. That team isn't winning anything.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Also, speaking of Kanter, if OKC keeps him, it's not at all realistic that they could have without getting rid of Harden. 

To me, a healthy Russ, whoever, Durant, Ibaka, Kanter is a much more complete team. If that team is healthy next year? I'd safely pick them as a top 3 favorite.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

R-Star said:


> So 3 players combine for literally 60% of the teams shots, and leaving 34.4 shots for the rest of the team? Ibaka is currently taking 12.3. Kanter is averaging 13.3. Waiters 12.9. So even with just those 3 they currently take over the shots you're allowing to remain.


Yes. That's about the same mix Lebron, Wade, and Bosh had in Miami and around the same that Lebron, Irving, and Love have now.

Or shoot less. I don't care. I don't think it's important. 14, 15, 16... who cares? One guy can take all the shots for all I care so long as he's open. If we can't think of anything more creative for those guys to do together than take turns going 1 on 1 then that's a failure of imagination (and given that that's basically what they did when they were together... a failure of coaching).

These guys can all share the floor at the same time: they're not a trio of 6'1" point guards. Just because Scott Brooks would roll the ball on the floor and let players fight over who gets to shoot doesn't mean that that's all they are capable of.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Yes. That's about the same mix Lebron, Wade, and Bosh had in Miami and around the same that Lebron, Irving, and Love have now.
> 
> Or shoot less. I don't care. I don't think it's important. 14, 15, 16... who cares? One guy can take all the shots for all I care so long as he's open. If we can't think of anything more creative for those guys to do together than take turns going 1 on 1 then that's a failure of imagination (and given that that's basically what they did when they were together... a failure of coaching).
> 
> These guys can all share the floor at the same time: they're not a trio of 6'1" point guards. Just because Scott Brooks would roll the ball on the floor and let players fight over who gets to shoot doesn't mean that that's all they are capable of.


Lebron, Wade, _Bosh_. 
Lebron, Irving, _Love_

Each of those has something Westbrook, Harden, Durant would not. A big man whos skill set compliments the other two and willingly plays third fiddle.

Not to mention it's easy to just compare teams to whatever Lebron team you'd like. But reality is, Kevin Durant isn't Lebron James.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> So 3 players combine for literally 60% of the teams shots, and leaving 34.4 shots for the rest of the team? Ibaka is currently taking 12.3. Kanter is averaging 13.3. Waiters 12.9. So even with just those 3 they currently take over the shots you're allowing to remain.
> 
> So lets say you reply by saying "Obviously Ibaka and Kanter will take less shots". All well and good. You've created a team that has 3 perimeter focused scoring options, and neutered Ibaka and Kanter (or whoever would have been there in his place). You basically defend these guys on the perimeter, leave a guy to double when need be, and have a defensive big in the paint to challenge Durant, Harden, Westbrook if/when they beat their defender. That team isn't winning anything.


Lakers won 3 championships with two players averaging 60% of the teams points though.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Lakers won 3 championships with two players averaging 60% of the teams points though.


Kobe and Shaqs skill set also overlapped quite a bit as well, so perhaps I'm wrong here...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Yes. That's about the same mix Lebron, Wade, and Bosh had in Miami *and around the same that Lebron, Irving, and Love have now.*


I didn't watch the Lebron/Wade/Bosh trio on a weekly basis so I'll let someone else address that, but I don't think you're right at all regarding the second trio. Lebron and Love are not only great passers who make others better but they could care less what their stats are. Irving is the only one of the three that tends to take a lot of shots and even then that doesn't equate to the amount a trio of Westbrook/Harden/Durant would have. 

There's also this guy named JR Smith. I have no idea how many shots he takes per game but it's probably significantly higher than the amount Kenter and Ibaka would have if they played with that trio...combined.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

R-Star said:


> "They could have drafted Rudy Gobert."
> 
> Again, it's easy to play computer chair GM a few years after the draft. Gobert was drafted 27th in what was called the weakest draft of the decade. No one though Gobert would turn out to what looks to be the next great defensive center.


The point is that Perkins is replaceable. Whether through the draft or free agency his 20 minutes a game are replaceable. Get a guy like Dalembert or O'Neal and you are fine.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

And the whole overlapping skill set thing doesn't make sense. Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc had overlapping skill sets and scored over 60% of the points. They had very little help offensively from the bigs. They were fine. And the Thunder trio already showed the could make the Finals. They just needed time to grow together.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

You should always take the talent. Westbrook/Harden/Durant clearly DID work so it's absolutely not far fetched to assume it would have continued to work. Maybe Harden doesn't explode like he did on the Rockets, but then again there has been plenty of long stretches in the Thunder past where one of Durant or Russ was out....he certainly would have had clear opportunities. 

No you don't _plan_ on your top two guys getting hurt but outside of LeBron James they basically all do get hurt. I mean really, who hasn't? Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, Blake Griffin, Kevin Durant, D Wade, Russ Westbrook, Steph Curry, Tony Parker, Anthony Davis, Dwight Howard...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> And the whole overlapping skill set thing doesn't make sense. Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc had overlapping skill sets and scored over 60% of the points. They had very little help offensively from the bigs. They were fine. And the Thunder trio already showed the could make the Finals. They just needed time to grow together.


Oh ok. So for it to work all they would need is Kevin Durant and Russ Westbrook to play up to the level of arguably the best 1-2 punch of all time? No biggie. 

Jordan and Pippen were also all time great defenders. While Russ is good and Durant is decent, they're not even on the same stratosphere defensively.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

BlakeJesus said:


> You should always take the talent. Westbrook/Harden/Durant clearly DID work so it's absolutely not far fetched to assume it would have continued to work. Maybe Harden doesn't explode like he did on the Rockets, but then again there has been plenty of long stretches in the Thunder past where one of Durant or Russ was out....he certainly would have had clear opportunities.
> 
> No you don't _plan_ on your top two guys getting hurt but outside of LeBron James they basically all do get hurt. I mean really, who hasn't? Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, Blake Griffin, Kevin Durant, D Wade, Russ Westbrook, Steph Curry, Tony Parker, Anthony Davis, Dwight Howard...


Who replaces Chris Paul when he gets hurt?
Who replaces Carmelo Anthony when he gets hurt?
Who replaces Blake Griffin when he gets hurt?
You get the idea. Who replaces _*ANY*_ of those players when they get hurt? Not one of the players mentioned has a guy who steps in and even adequately fills in for them. Yet you yourself and others continue to act like the Thunder are run by idiots because they didn't have Harden to step in for Westbrook when he went down in the playoffs.


James Harden would not have been ok being a backup. James Harden would not have been ok being a distant third wheel. 


For the love of god people, this is the same James Harden who just gave Chandler Parsons the finger when he left the team calling him a role player. Yet you want me to believe he'd be fine playing third fiddle to two guys with the exact same skill set?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Durant had missed 14 total games in 5 seasons and Westbrook hadn't missed a game since high school at the time they traded Harden. Clearly, the writing was on the wall and anyone with foresight could've predicted one or both would be injured come playoff time every season and they would need Harden on a max deal as insurance.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Mrs. Thang said:


> There is no possible way you can spin the Harden trade as anything other than a colossal fuck up. It's the worst trade in modern NBA history and continues to have direct implications on the championship picture. I don't know why that would not be worth talking about.


Exactly. This trade continues to haunt Oklahoma City and could be the move that causes this team to break up in a couple of years. 

I also don't understand some of the revisionist logic used in this thread to defend the trade. It's like people are forgetting that James Harden was the NBA's Sixth Man of the Year and a member of the Olympic team with the Thunder, and that a core of Harden, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka went to the Finals.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

R-Star said:


> Lebron, Wade, _Bosh_.
> Lebron, Irving, _Love_
> 
> Each of those has something Westbrook, Harden, Durant would not. A big man whos skill set compliments the other two and willingly plays third fiddle.


Lets actually look at the top offensive 3 man units from 2011-2012...

2011-2012: 3-Man Units Sorted By Points Per 100 Possessions

I'll be damned! Have a look at #1 . The lineup that doesn't work together were literally the best offensive trio in the league. But they didn't have overlapping, complimentary skills...

(Now cue everybody trying to defend that trade falling back to the other pet argument of "But they couldn't pay everybody!" Which was it? They didn't work or they couldn't pay?)


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Lets actually look at the top offensive 3 man units from 2011-2012...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about the fact that the very next season Durant, Westbrook and Kevin Martin led the league in the same measure?

2012-2013: 3-Man Units Sorted By Points Per 100 Possessions


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> And the whole overlapping skill set thing doesn't make sense. Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc had overlapping skill sets and scored over 60% of the points. They had very little help offensively from the bigs. They were fine. And the Thunder trio already showed the could make the Finals. They just needed time to grow together.


Jordan and Pippen were not the same type of player. Pippen ran the offense, he was a facilitator on top of being a good scorer. Jordan was an all time great offensive player. Jordan and Pippen as well as Kukoc understood their roles on the team. They weren't just three ball jackers who averaged 20 a game. Also the Bulls were a defensive juggernaut. 

Also if memory serves me correctly, Kuk was the Bulls sixth man, just like Harden was for the Thunder.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I don't think I've seen a thread like this where I pretty much disagree with both sides.

I think the "you should keep harden to account for injuries to the other two" argument is stupid. But I certainly think the Harden, Westbrook and Durant trio would of worked and DID work together. However they just couldn't afford to make it work financially, and Martin and Adams was a nice return for him in terms of supporting Westbrook/Durant/Ibaka nucleus. Now they have Katner for the money they didn't spend on Martin and Harden and I think if they stay healthy they're just as strong of a contender as anyone.

Name one team that can win a ring without one of their all-stars please.

Now at the same time, the "Perkins was a valuable center" argument is stupid. If they let Harden go to keep Perkins and his salary than I agree it was a dumb move.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Jordan and Pippen were not the same type of player. Pippen ran the offense, he was a facilitator on top of being a good scorer. Jordan was an all time great offensive player. Jordan and Pippen as well as Kukoc understood their roles on the team. They weren't just three ball jackers who averaged 20 a game. Also the Bulls were a defensive juggernaut.
> 
> Also if memory serves me correctly, Kuk was the Bulls sixth man, just like Harden was for the Thunder.


How did Pippen compliment Jordan's game versus Steve Colter?


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

hobojoe said:


> What about the fact that the very next season Durant, Westbrook and Kevin Martin led the league in the same measure?
> 
> 2012-2013: 3-Man Units Sorted By Points Per 100 Possessions


Now we're moving the goal posts again. These guys have spent the last 3 days telling me Durant, Harden, and Westbrook can't play together because they are too similar. They clearly can. They are all brilliant offensive players so any lineup featuring any combination of them is probably going to be excellent. 

If you want to talk about he marginal value of any one of these guys, that's fine, but that's a different conversation (and a universal one around the league: the third star doesn't add nearly as much marginal value to a lineup as the second star anywhere). Just don't tell me Harden, Westbrook, and Durant can't play together because that's absurd.

BTW, I'll still argue that small margins of value are still extremely valuable when you are at the top. You typically don't have large separation at the highest levels in pro-sports so every little bit counts. Further, being able to keep two superstars on the floor at all times is extremely valuable (or even less: in 2012 Harden on the floor with Durant and Westbrook resting was also one of the best offensive combinations in the league). Lots of teams have great 3 man units, but even the most overused 3 man groupings only cover about 40% of the game. OKC may not lose much without Harden with their best groups on the floor, but Harden gave them the advantage of being able to cover more of the game with great lineups.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Lets actually look at the top offensive 3 man units from 2011-2012...
> 
> 2011-2012: 3-Man Units Sorted By Points Per 100 Possessions
> 
> ...


Again, James Harden was not staying to come off the bench and take 10 shots.

You honestly are saying you don't understand that? It's like talking with a brick wall.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> Now we're moving the goal posts again. These guys have spent the last 3 days telling me Durant, Harden, and Westbrook can't play together because they are too similar. They clearly can. They are all brilliant offensive players so any lineup featuring any combination of them is probably going to be excellent.
> 
> If you want to talk about he marginal value of any one of these guys, that's fine, but that's a different conversation (and a universal one around the league: the third star doesn't add nearly as much marginal value to a lineup as the second star anywhere). Just don't tell me Harden, Westbrook, and Durant can't play together because that's absurd.
> 
> BTW, I'll still argue that small margins of value are still extremely valuable when you are at the top. You typically don't have large separation at the highest levels in pro-sports so every little bit counts. Further, being able to keep two superstars on the floor at all times is extremely valuable (or even less: in 2012 Harden on the floor with Durant and Westbrook resting was also one of the best offensive combinations in the league). Lots of teams have great 3 man units, but even the most overused 3 man groupings only cover about 40% of the game. OKC may not lose much without Harden with their best groups on the floor, but Harden gave them the advantage of being able to cover more of the game with great lineups.


People bringing up that Martin provided the same thing Harden did off the bench has been brought up multiple times this thread. I was the second or third guy to piggy back it. So no, no ones moving goal posts here. It has been a staple of the argument. Harden was a spark plug scorer and primary ball handler off the bench. Martin provided a similar asset at a much cheaper price tag. It's been said throughout the whole thread if you'd like to go back and check.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> I don't think I've seen a thread like this where I pretty much disagree with both sides.
> 
> I think the "you should keep harden to account for injuries to the other two" argument is stupid. But I certainly think the Harden, Westbrook and Durant trio would of worked and DID work together. However they just couldn't afford to make it work financially, and Martin and Adams was a nice return for him in terms of supporting Westbrook/Durant/Ibaka nucleus. Now they have Katner for the money they didn't spend on Martin and Harden and I think if they stay healthy they're just as strong of a contender as anyone.
> 
> ...


Just to clarify, I wanted them to amnesty Perkins (as I stated earlier) and I think it was a mistake at the time not to. They were loyal to a fault to Perkins because Perkins helped change the culture of the team. The point was not to keep Perkins instead of Harden, but rather allocate salary to positions of needs rather than using max money on a player that would be grossly underutilized. Again, you're not paying a doctor a doctor's salary to sweep the floors.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

is there a decent head coach currently in the league who came from the college ranks ?

my guess is no.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> is there a decent head coach currently in the league who came from the college ranks ?
> 
> my guess is no.


I think Brad Stevens is from the college ranks. You can't argue him as a top coach right now by any means, but I think he looks good.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> is there a decent head coach currently in the league who came from the college ranks ?
> 
> my guess is no.


Possible troll post. Are you serious?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> is there a decent head coach currently in the league who came from the college ranks ?
> 
> my guess is no.


*Current Guys who were once College Head Coaches*
Gregg Popovich
Brad Stevens
Tom Thibodeau
Stan Van Gundy
Steve Clifford
Quin Snyder

That list is all I can think of, but I don't know if it's comprehensive. A few of those guys are pretty good NBA coaches.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

:yep:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I meant straight from college , guys like thibs and pop were longtime assistants in the nba before making it to head coach

stevens came straight so he qualifies , but for the most part when nba teams go to college ranks to fill their coaching spots it generally doesn't work out.

the thunder seem to be an especially tough place to start considering the pressure to be great now and managing westbrook in a way that gets the most out of him but allows everyone to stay involved plus Durant's impending free agency.

someone in this thread mentioned scott skiles and while I feel he is limited in certain areas of coaching he would be perfect on this team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Great coaches can come from anywhere. I don't think you can just discount any place where you might find a coach. You'd love to find NBA experience, but there are probably only a handful of guys with NBA experience that I'd feel more comfortable with than Billy Donovan, and that's including coaches who already have jobs. That's the Pop, Carlisle, Kerr, Bud, Doc type coaches. Of the available coaches with NBA experience, I don't think any of them have a better chance of doing a better job than Billy Donovan. That's why losing Brooks is kind of tough. It's one thing to have someone really proven lined up, but it's another to get rid of Brooks for the sake of change and avoiding stagnation.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Houston led by James Harden -- Western Conference finals.

Oklahoma City -- in the lottery, fired Scott Brooks as coach, hired Billy Donovan as Brooks' replacement.

If someone still is trying to make the argument that Oklahoma City made the right decision in trading Harden for a bag of peanuts, then that person is an idiot. 

This easily is the worst trade in the NBA in years, and because of the implications could end up being one of the worst trades in NBA history.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Here goes another 10 pages...... :laugh:


----------

