NBA Discussion Thread - Page 2962

y.f.s. · 10-29-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comahan

Weird, because I think he's worth it to the Thunder more than he is to other teams. I dont care if you go over the luxury tax (which shouldnt matter to OKC since they make a 35 mil profit last year), you keep your main pieces together when youre at the early stages of a DYNASTY. All they did was give 50 million dollars to Serge Ibaka instead, who is vastly inferior to Harden. Good shot blocker, has upside with his midrange jumper, but thats it. Under any scenario ever, id take Harden at 15 million per year over Ibaka at 12 million per year. Well thats a lie, id take Serge if wins were based on shot blocks instead of points.

Why isn't a bigger deal being made out of how much money they have tied into a very replaceable frontcourt?

MetSox17 · 10-29-2012, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comahan

Weird, because I think he's worth it to the Thunder more than he is to other teams. I dont care if you go over the luxury tax (which shouldnt matter to OKC since they make a 35 mil profit last year), you keep your main pieces together when youre at the early stages of a DYNASTY. All they did was give 50 million dollars to Serge Ibaka instead, who is vastly inferior to Harden. Good shot blocker, has upside with his midrange jumper, but thats it. Under any scenario ever, id take Harden at 15 million per year over Ibaka at 12 million per year. Well thats a lie, id take Serge if wins were based on shot blocks instead of points.

The Rockets get a guy who they feel can be a number one, who they can market as the face of their franchise. Someone who rose to stardom during the playoffs last year helping his team get to the NBA Finals. He can walk in and become the volume scorer they so desperately need from day one, and they can stay within the cap.

The Thunder would lose a huge chunk of their revenues if they paid Harden. You're right that if given the choice between the two, i'd much rather have Harden than Ibaka/Perkins (more dead moeny), but that simply wasn't the case anymore. You can't go back and say 'well i would have done this differently'. Presti wasn't playing with a time machine here, he had to make a choice for the future of the franchise and for his owners checkbook, and if ownership told him "look, we wanna win, but we're also in the business of making money. how am i gonna do that when i'm paying $25m of luxury tax every year for four years?". Bf51 is right, that's part of the reason why moving to OKC was such a controversial move. The Lakers made close to $100m in revenue last year. The Thunder made the finals and barely cleared $35m, most of which would go to the NBA. It's a tough call, i can't really fault the Thunder.

MetSox17 · 10-29-2012, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y.f.s.

Why isn't a bigger deal being made out of how much money they have tied into a very replaceable frontcourt?

Because Sam Presti is widely regarded as a genius that doesn't make wrong moves. Giving up Jeff Green for Kendrick Perkins, overpaying Perk then signing Ibaka before Harden is the reason they're in this mess now. I highly doubt Ibaka would have commanded that much money in the open market.

comahan · 10-29-2012, 05:36 PM

Ibaka isnt even the best PF on their team, either. Nick Collison is a much more well rounded player, and hes making $2.9M/$2.5M/$2.2M over the next three years. But nope, gotta give 12 million a year to Serge Ibaka and take the chance that James Harden will settle for a lot less than what 25+ other teams would give him.

MetSox17 · 10-29-2012, 05:39 PM

Ibaka has the potential to develop into someone that's worth that money in the future, but between those two, Harden was deserving of that money NOW. They made their bed, now they gotta lay in it.

Brodeur · 10-29-2012, 05:41 PM

Ibaka would have commanded that much, the market is a fickle place these days. And the difference between when Harden was on/off the court for the Thunder last year was ******* nuts, he was crazy important to their success overall. Not that they're a bad team now or anything, they'll still make the playoffs and probably put up a minor fight. But losing Harden takes them from being the favorite in the West (they still were), to being a tier below LA Lakers/Spurs/Nuggets/Clippers.

I understand the financial implications of it, but the Thunder can't expect a 23 year old to take a discount. They were aiming for what Duncan did for the Spurs a few years ago, but Duncan was over 30 and had earned over $130 million in his career by that point (over $200 million now).

MetSox17 · 10-29-2012, 05:44 PM

Talk about overreacting. A tier below the freaking Nuggets and Clippers? Ya'll realize the second best player on the entire planet still plays for the Thunder, right? That they have two bonafide superstars and a team that runs just about everyone out of the gym. The Spurs are a year older now and the Lakers haven't shown anything yet. Let's all step back and take a chill pill, i still expect them to have a top-two record in the WC.

Rosebud · 10-29-2012, 05:45 PM

I think we can all agree that Houston should just give Lin, Asik and Harden back to the teams they stole them from.

comahan · 10-29-2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Talk about overreacting. A tier below the freaking Nuggets and Clippers? Ya'll realize the second best player on the entire planet still plays for the Thunder, right? That they have two bonafide superstars and a team that runs just about everyone out of the gym. The Spurs are a year older now and the Lakers haven't shown anything yet. Let's all step back and take a chill pill, i still expect them to have a top-two record in the WC.

I agree with you about the Clippers, but I looooove the Nuggets this year. I had them really high in the West before this trade, id put them on about even ground with the Thunder now, unless Kevin Martin's pulse picks back up overnight.

Brodeur · 10-29-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Talk about overreacting. A tier below the freaking Nuggets and Clippers? Ya'll realize the second best player on the entire planet still plays for the Thunder, right? That they have two bonafide superstars and a team that runs just about everyone out of the gym. The Spurs are a year older now and the Lakers haven't shown anything yet. Let's all step back and take a chill pill, i still expect them to have a top-two record in the WC.

Nuggets are far more well rounded and have a guy that's just as good as Westbrook at point. The Clippers have the best PG on the planet, and a developing Blake Griffin along with an upgraded bench. Spurs aren't even old anymore, so I'm not sure why that's relevant. And the Thunder just lost arguably their second most important player and downgraded, there's no reason to believe they can keep up with teams that all got better.

D-Unit · 10-29-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brodeur

Nuggets are far more well rounded and have a guy that's just as good as Westbrook at point. The Clippers have the best PG on the planet, and a developing Blake Griffin along with an upgraded bench. Spurs aren't even old anymore, so I'm not sure why that's relevant. And the Thunder just lost arguably their second most important player and downgraded, there's no reason to believe they can keep up with teams that all got better.

Ty Lawson = Russell Westbrook???

Spurs aren't old?

Harden was the Thunder's 2nd most important player?

Nuggets are now better than the Thunder?

Brodeur · 10-29-2012, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Ty Lawson = Russell Westbrook???

Spurs aren't old?

Harden was the Thunder's 2nd most important player?

Nuggets are now better than the Thunder?

1) Lawson's a better passer and shooter while being more efficient, and he doesn't take dumbass shots that take his team out of the game late. Westbrook is still very good, but Lawson is seriously underrated.

2) Umm...no. Less so than the Lakers, because they have the depth to help out with Duncan and Manu, so their minutes are very restricted in the regular season so that they can be maximized in the postseason. Danny Green, Kawhi Leonard, Tiago Splitter, and so forth are all pretty young while Parker is only 30.

3) Yes, there's a reason he was given the ball to run the offense in crunch time just as much if not more than Westbrook.

4) Yes, I've gone over why before but I can keep doing it if you insist.

bearsfan_51 · 10-29-2012, 06:13 PM

The Spurs aren't that old. A lot of teams have won championships with a much older core of players.

bearsfan_51 · 10-29-2012, 06:13 PM

Also, can we put an end to that stupid emoticon? It was funny for about 5 seconds, and that was 2-3 years ago.

Raiderz4Life · 10-29-2012, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Also, can we put an end to that stupid emoticon? It was funny for about 5 seconds, and that was 2-3 years ago.

Brodeur · 10-29-2012, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

The Spurs aren't that old. A lot of teams have won championships with a much older core of players.

And they don't even play that much in the regular season yet are able to win 50-55 games. It's all about using them in the playoffs. Manu will get like 25 MPG tops, and Duncan maybe 27 MPG. The rest of the team is young enough.

bearsfan_51 · 10-29-2012, 06:17 PM

The '97-'98 Bulls won the championship when Jordan was 35, Rodman was 37, and Pippen was 32. Most of the role players were at or over 30 as well.

D-Unit · 10-29-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brodeur

1) Lawson's a better passer and shooter while being more efficient, and he doesn't take dumbass shots that take his team out of the game late. Westbrook is still very good, but Lawson is seriously underrated.

2) Umm...no. Less so than the Lakers, because they have the depth to help out with Duncan and Manu, so their minutes are very restricted in the regular season so that they can be maximized in the postseason. Danny Green, Kawhi Leonard, Tiago Splitter, and so forth are all pretty young while Parker is only 30.

3) Yes, there's a reason he was given the ball to run the offense in crunch time just as much if not more than Westbrook.

4) Yes, I've gone over why before but I can keep doing it if you insist.

Lawson is a better passer and it ends there. Russell is the superior player overall, so let's not pretend they are equal. Russell can shutdown Lawson, but the opposite isn't true. Defensively Lawson is a huge liability

Kawhi Leonard is the ONLY player on the Spurs that is worth listing in regards to the Spurs being young. Danny Green and Tiago Splitter can go suck a duck. They don't even start. Yet you consider them reasons to think of the Spurs as not being old anymore? C'mon man. Their core triplet stars are all old... and that's not even mentioning Stephen Jackson.

When Harden was occassionally playing with the 1st team and the Thunder occassionally used him to bring up the ball it was because between him and Westbrook, Westbrook was the better scorer. Let's not get confused into thinking that Harden bringing the ball up court was done out of sheer neccessity.

When the Thunder are superior than the Nuggets this year, I'll have the last laugh.

scottyboy · 10-29-2012, 06:37 PM

Lawson's a liability defensively? What.

Lawson rules. He's not quite on Westbrook's level overall and can't take a game over from a scoring standpoint like Rus, but he's close. I love the Nugs. Not sure they're better than the Thunder, but without Harden, they're close to even in my book

Brodeur · 10-29-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Lawson is a better passer and it ends there. Russell is the superior player overall, so let's not pretend they are equal. Russell can shutdown Lawson, but the opposite isn't true. Defensively Lawson is a huge liability

Kawhi Leonard is the ONLY player on the Spurs that is worth listing in regards to the Spurs being young. Danny Green and Tiago Splitter can go suck a duck. They don't even start. Yet you consider them reasons to think of the Spurs as not being old anymore? C'mon man. Their core triplet stars are all old... and that's not even mentioning Stephen Jackson.

When Harden was occassionally playing with the 1st team and the Thunder occassionally used him to bring up the ball it was because between him and Westbrook, Westbrook was the better scorer. Let's not get confused into thinking that Harden bringing the ball up court was done out of sheer neccessity.

When the Thunder are superior than the Nuggets this year, I'll have the last laugh.

Lawson's the better shooter and more efficient offensive player. And he's small, but he's hardly a defensive liability. His quickness can frustrate others. He's not as good as Westbrook defensively, but Westbrook would not shut down Lawson either. Plus, Lawson now has the best perimeter defender in basketball sharing the backcourt with him, so there's your fun.

Green does start, actually. Plays about 23-25 minutes a game while Manu comes off the bench. Tiago is their third big man at this point, but is crazy efficient and a very solid big. He isn't as young as I thought, but he'll probably get over 20 minutes a game this year.

Umm, that makes no sense. My point is that Harden was able to run the offense better with the ball in his hands, and he's more effective with the ball out of his hands. Your reasoning makes zero sense whatsoever.

Keep dreaming. The Nuggets are too well rounded, young, fast and dynamic. You're going to regret overlooking them.

bigbluedefense · 10-29-2012, 06:40 PM

The Nuggets suck.

Rosebud · 10-29-2012, 06:42 PM

All of you underestimate just how much better simply having Durant makes the Thunder. The Nuggets and Timberwolves are splitting my second favorite team spot, but the Thunder trump the Nuggets, despite what a huge loss Harden is. The Thunder are also still better than the Clippers. Spurs is a toss up cause I do like the youth SA has been putting together around their big three, but the Thunder are the 2nd or third best team in the West.

Brodeur · 10-29-2012, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

The Nuggets suck.

You can keep pretending you actually know basketball, but how about a post where you actually talk about it? Blanket statements show how much of a boring ass troll you are.

bigbluedefense · 10-29-2012, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brodeur

You can keep pretending you actually know basketball, but how about a post where you actually talk about it? Blanket statements show how much of a boring ass troll you are.

What's there to talk about? They suck. A 5 seed who is not a contender by any stretch. They lack a go to guy. You can't win in the playoffs without a closer and a go to guy.

D-Unit · 10-29-2012, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboy

Lawson's a liability defensively? What.

Lawson rules. He's not quite on Westbrook's level overall and can't take a game over from a scoring standpoint like Rus, but he's close. I love the Nugs. Not sure they're better than the Thunder, but without Harden, they're close to even in my book

Lawson is a huge defensive liability against Westbrook. We were talking about the comparison between the two. Let's not go off on tangents.