The Official James Harden Thread

[tsherkin]

^ I think that's well within reach. Very likely for him to end up with these stats more or less.

Maybe even slightly better in terms of points, maybe 23, 24.

Lower FG%, I'd think, because he takes more 3PA/g. His overall scoring efficiency should be good, though. Could be anywhere from +2 to +5% over leage average, depending on how well he handles the extra minutes, volume and defensive attention.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[boogie-reke]

Just added it myself before you quoted me I agree.

[Trader_Joe]

The only thing that really surprised me last night was how in shape Harden looked. I don't remember him always looking so fit. That is a great sign considering what he's been going through. Looks like he stayed focused and ready to play regardless.

[CousinOfDeath]

He's so fun to watch.

[Trader_Joe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did OKC really let him go over $1m per year?

They supposedly offered him 4/54 as a final offer.
The most they would have had to pay him was 4/58 (the most another team could have offered next summer).

So $4m, or $1m per year of the contract made a difference for OKC?

[Z_Solidarity]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did OKC really let him go over $1m per year?

They supposedly offered him 4/54 as a final offer.
The most they would have had to pay him was 4/58 (the most another team could have offered next summer).

So $4m, or $1m per year of the contract made a difference for OKC?

They let him go over a trade kicker. Reports indicate that he would have been willing to take the 53-55

So in essence, the Thunder wanted to maintain trade flexibility in case they needed to trade Harden in the future.

[Trader_Joe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did OKC really let him go over $1m per year?

They supposedly offered him 4/54 as a final offer.
The most they would have had to pay him was 4/58 (the most another team could have offered next summer).

So $4m, or $1m per year of the contract made a difference for OKC?

They let him go over a trade kicker. Reports indicate that he would have been willing to take the 53-55

So in essence, the Thunder wanted to maintain trade flexibility in case they needed to trade Harden in the future.

Could a team offered him a contract with a trade kicker next summer or only the team holding his rights?

[slick_watts]

Disclaimer: I do not support the Harden trade.

OKC didn't let Harden go over $4M, that would have been compounded by luxury tax payments down the line. This trade kicker business has only been sourced by Bill Simmons, who also said something about a non-trade clause (which was not available to Harden). Considering the emotional instability of Simmons' writing since the trade, I wouldn't put much stock into his reporting.

For Sam Presti, it was more than just the luxury tax. It was that if you are above a certain level in the tax the MLE becomes unavailable to you and it is much harder to add players and make moves. Even at 4/53 and using the amnesty on Perkins, the Thunder would have faced this reality eventually. It's true they could have kept Harden around at least one or two more seasons without things getting outrageous, but Presti wanted the future of the team and the situation resolved and felt this was when he could get the most value out of Harden.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. If you go for it this season with Harden un-extended, you then have to do a S&T after the year is over and OKC would probably get less since Harden wouldn't have that year of rookie scale. The only other good player I can find who was traded under those circumstances was Al Jefferson, and he was the main piece of the Garnett trade.

[cochiseuofm]

Harden is a really good player...I was surprised how many people thought OKC made a good deal and still am. He has all of the abilities you look for out of a guard, good shooting percentages, good range, the ability to get to the rim at will, the ability to facilitate the offense like a PG...and he is only 23. And he got traded for parts and change.

He had every right to ask for a trade kicker if he was accepting less money to play for a contending team too. If he is taking a discount, he shouldn't have to risk getting dealt to a bad team when he could have gone and played for that same team for much more money.

BTW I don't know why everyone is discounting the trade kicker report because it was Bill Simmons. He doesn't have a reputation of just making up things like that and he is friends with the Rockets GM, so it is possible he has an inside look on the deal. And Harden asking for a trade kicker, which would bump his salary 15% if dealt, makes perfect sense too.

[Trader_Joe]

Disclaimer: I do not support the Harden trade.

OKC didn't let Harden go over $4M, that would have been compounded by luxury tax payments down the line. This trade kicker business has only been sourced by Bill Simmons, who also said something about a non-trade clause (which was not available to Harden). Considering the emotional instability of Simmons' writing since the trade, I wouldn't put much stock into his reporting.

For Sam Presti, it was more than just the luxury tax. It was that if you are above a certain level in the tax the MLE becomes unavailable to you and it is much harder to add players and make moves. Even at 4/53 and using the amnesty on Perkins, the Thunder would have faced this reality eventually. It's true they could have kept Harden around at least one or two more seasons without things getting outrageous, but Presti wanted the future of the team and the situation resolved and felt this was when he could get the most value out of Harden.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. If you go for it this season with Harden un-extended, you then have to do a S&T after the year is over and OKC would probably get less since Harden wouldn't have that year of rookie scale. The only other good player I can find who was traded under those circumstances was Al Jefferson, and he was the main piece of the Garnett trade.

You don't support it, but you defended it.
What don't you support about the trade and what would you have done?

Meanwhile I still think it was doable...
-The tax should go up over time
-You always have a tax payer MLE, if not the full one. (But even then, the MLE argument makes it sound like OKC values depth over their stars)
-For a win now team, worry about the future later, when I'm sure there will still be plenty of options
-I've tried the math and considering OKC's quality drafting... between draft picks, minimum players, amnesty victims and ring chasers I think the affordable depth was there.

[PCProductions]

I just glad that everyone that used the excuse that he played in garbage time made him look good is feeling embarrassed right now. He's an all star this year without a doubt in my mind.

[slick_watts]

You don't support it, but you defended it.
What don't you support about the trade and what would you have done?

I'm speaking towards why Presti made the decision he did. I understand why he did it, even if I do not agree with the decision. Presti wanted to maintain flexibility to build or re-tool the roster, and did not want to have this hanging over the team for any longer. He wanted Harden at a price that made sense for the Thunder pocketbook and flexibility, but that couldn't happen. I think that was the wrong decision, but Presti's reasoning goes beyond just "$4M".

I would have extended Harden for 4/60 and dealt with the salary cap ramifications after the season. Both Harden and Ibaka could have easily out performed their respective contracts - neither were likely to lose value, and would have remained tradeable assets after the season. Worst case scenario you have a year with these four together and eat some tax dollars in 2013-14 when you trade one of them for an expiring + picks or other young players. I don't really like the idea of allowing Harden to play out the season as RFA, because I do think that would have been a distraction, and I don't like what teams get in S&T deals.

You make fair points and I don't disagree with them. The main reason I don't like the trade was the timing of it - I don't think this package was the best Presti could have gotten and I believe Ric Bucher's report that Harden was not aggressively shopped around the league. Presti could have even waited a couple of days to see if better offers came out of just Houston, much less other teams.

[Frank Mulely]

Yep Slick, that's the thing that doesn't seem to be playing into peoples calculus in general - if you have a young healthy star, extend him then worst case trade him if you have cap issues.

Also to me, if you have to choose between the big 4 and Perkins, get rid of Perkins.

[rockmanslim]

The only thing that really surprised me last night was how in shape Harden looked. I don't remember him always looking so fit. That is a great sign considering what he's been going through. Looks like he stayed focused and ready to play regardless.

Honestly, it's probably those horrible Rockets uniforms. They're so billowy, like blouses. I've noticed over the years that they make every player who wears them look skinnier.

[Archerbro]

Yep Slick, that's the thing that doesn't seem to be playing into peoples calculus in general - if you have a young healthy star, extend him then worst case trade him if you have cap issues.

Also to me, if you have to choose between the big 4 and Perkins, get rid of Perkins.

with dwight in the west, I'm not so sure OKC should get rid of Perkins.

[Bertrob]

Yep Slick, that's the thing that doesn't seem to be playing into peoples calculus in general - if you have a young healthy star, extend him then worst case trade him if you have cap issues.

Also to me, if you have to choose between the big 4 and Perkins, get rid of Perkins.

with dwight in the west, I'm not so sure OKC should get rid of Perkins.

Except for the fact that Perkin's overrated defense is much more replaceable than Harden

[Doctor MJ]

You don't support it, but you defended it.

To others reading: TJ isn't saying this about me. I just felt like responding to it.

I think the big point here is really that Presti got wedged in a situation where there was only really three fundamental positions:

1) Safest: Keep everyone even though you know Harden's going to be overpaid given what you're going to ask him to do.

2) Safe-ish: Keep your two established stars, let the new star go.

3) Bold: Promote the new star up the hierarchy, and probably end up letting of the two established stars go.

Note that if Harden truly was a considerably lesser player than Westbrook, either decision 1 or decision 2 is really fine basketball-wise. While we can nitpick about how Presti did this, in the end we're talking about what to do when your third best perimeter player requires max money. There is no rule book for such situations. When has it ever happened before? As long as that scouting is correct, Presti's fine in the big picture.

The fascinating part to me is whether the scouting is wrong, because I don't think Presti made this move due to being confident in the scouting. I'd say he made the move because he didn't dare try to make a plan that kept Harden as long as possible to see if he'd surpass Westbrook, and one of the reasons for that is because he didn't have faith he'd ever figure it out without an injury to Westbrook (or literally telling Brooks to demote Westbrook in the Thunder hierarchy).

Presti got wedged in a situation where the existing stars were too well established, and it's quite likely he never actually got in the debate that all of us impartial observers are going to be talking about going forward. This is not where you want to be as a GM.

Adding to the fascination even more: The reason Westbrook is so established over Harden is that he joined the team just one season before Harden, and the team really committed to Westbrook early on giving him starter level minutes and a 25 Usage as a rookie...when he really didn't earn this.

To be clear, when I say "earn", what I'm speaking to the strategy of putting a promising young prospect into the role you expect him to grow into right away. It's not a terrible strategy. We've certainly seen it work both with the huge successes and the failures (if I guy flops, you can move on quickly). However, in the case of a middle ground where a young prospect does pretty well but does not take to the role like a prodigy, it can mean that you've deprived yourself of a more open tryout.

OKC from the time they got Harden basically just tried to fit him in with their existing approach, even when there were signs that a fundamentally different use of Westbrook & Harden might be more optimal. If this trade turns out badly for OKC, the moral of the story might be that you need to be careful how gung ho you get about pre-establishing your star nucleus.

[NCHeels2008]

wow, what a backcourt

[SweetTouch]

ok and the haters? Where they at?

harden is something else

[DelontesLip]

45 pts tonight but more importantly the Rockets are UNDEFEATED