Woj: Kanter signing an offer sheet w/Portland

[MoneyTalks41890]

GS wasn't doing Lee a favor, that's crap. But I don't see the similarities really. But I also am very tired of everything coming back to Harden. People dramatically reach to loop that trade into what's going on now. And a chip is the only thing that will really get posters to stop chirping about it, but there's plenty of other interesting conversations to have about OKC without always reverting back to the trade. Without injuries this team no question would have made more noise, and OKC is still one of the best run orgs in the league.

[dozendonuts]

Sorry, and i know its been discussed in some detail, but all i can think about this is OKC may be giving that harden money to Enes freaking Kanter. It just bottles mah mind.

First of all, the cap space in 2012 was $58 million, compared to $70 million this year. Second, had Harden been given the max, OKC would've faced the repeater tax, which they won't with Kanter's contract since the cap could reach $100 million by 2017. And third, had Harden been given the max, who knows how much would've been left for Durant in 2016, and then Westbrook or Ibaka or both in 2017.

[JasonStern]

GS wasn't doing Lee a favor, that's crap. But I don't see the similarities really. But I also am very tired of everything coming back to Harden. People dramatically reach to loop that trade into what's going on now. And a chip is the only thing that will really get posters to stop chirping about it, but there's plenty of other interesting conversations to have about OKC without always reverting back to the trade. Without injuries this team no question would have made more noise, and OKC is still one of the best run orgs in the league.

a championship would just make the Harden trade worse in retrospect. there would be a bunch of "had they kept Harden, would this have been one of the greatest dynasties ever?" threads.

OKC Harden did not play at Houston Harden level. anyone that claims otherwise was revisionist. to put things in perspective, the trade board idea I remember as a Blazer fan being floated around was disgruntled Aldridge for somewhat unproven Harden and power forward replacement Ibaka. I get the trade. revisionist history makes it look bad, but at the time, that Raptors pick seemed like it was going to be a very good pick. but the Raptors overachieved, so insert cliché here.

rookie contract talent continuing to develop as Harden did is a legitimate probability. that's why I actually feel like Presti is effectively going to be pressured into matching. the flak he would get if Kanter walked and turned into a talented player would be huge. and while Kanter is a flawed player, the Blazers roster looks pretty bad. I can see him getting 20ppg next season as the primary big, which would add to the anti-Presti sentiment despite those 20ppg likely not translating to wins.

and I'm not saying this as a Blazers fan hoping we land Kanter. honestly, I'm indifferent. there are much worse ways for Portland to spend their cap space, but at the same time, they already have young bigs in Plumlee, Leonard, Vonleh, and Davis, and have yet to trade Kaman. so while I understand that bad teams need to take what talent they can get, it's certainly a questionable fit for Portland. I will say that I'd much, much rather have Steven Adams on a rookie scale contract than Kanter on a max contract.

and having lost Aldridge, I will say that Thunder fans are lucky to be in a situation in which they are debating whether or not keeping a talented big is worth doing. it's much more fun to be on the opposite end situation wise.

had Harden been given the max, OKC would've faced the repeater tax, which they won't with Kanter's contract since the cap could reach $100 million by 2017.

you're mixing and matching your CBAs. the repeater tax didn't exist when Harden was due for an extension.

[HeartBreakKid]

OKC Harden did not play at Houston Harden level. anyone that claims otherwise was revisionist. to put things in perspective, the trade board idea I remember as a Blazer fan being floated around was disgruntled Aldridge for somewhat unproven Harden and power forward replacement Ibaka. I get the trade. revisionist history makes it look bad, but at the time, that Raptors pick seemed like it was going to be a very good pick. but the Raptors overachieved, so insert cliché here.

Yes, he did. You just were not paying attention because he came off the bench.


The 2013 season is exactly what people said would happen if James Harden were to get his own team. The only people who said otherwise are those who think people who come off the bench can't be stars (same people who think Ginobili isn't a star).

Look at his stats on his 2012 season, those are franchise player stats. 17 points on 66 TS% isn't a roleplayer number. Go into the player comparison thread and see the "Is James Harden a superstar" thread - that was first made when he was in the Thunder.

[JasonStern]

OKC Harden did not play at Houston Harden level. anyone that claims otherwise was revisionist. to put things in perspective, the trade board idea I remember as a Blazer fan being floated around was disgruntled Aldridge for somewhat unproven Harden and power forward replacement Ibaka. I get the trade. revisionist history makes it look bad, but at the time, that Raptors pick seemed like it was going to be a very good pick. but the Raptors overachieved, so insert cliché here.

Yes, he did. You just were not paying attention because he came off the bench.


The 2013 season is exactly what people said would happen if James Harden were to get his own team. The only people who said otherwise are those who think people who come off the bench can't be stars (same people who think Ginobili isn't a star).

Look at his stats on his 2012 season, those are franchise player stats.

I seriously doubt that James Harden was considered an MVP candidate coming off the bench for OKC, but I will gladly ask for links/references to back this up.

[MoneyTalks41890]

No, he's right. There was a lot of debate about what Harden could be. Washington refused to.give Beal for him, GS Klay, etc. The Raps.pick was going to be very good until.they traded for Gay and got a lot better. The repeater tax was def known when the deal was done. And ya, I think OKC keeps Kanter , but it's definitely a lot of money...

[HeartBreakKid]

OKC Harden did not play at Houston Harden level. anyone that claims otherwise was revisionist. to put things in perspective, the trade board idea I remember as a Blazer fan being floated around was disgruntled Aldridge for somewhat unproven Harden and power forward replacement Ibaka. I get the trade. revisionist history makes it look bad, but at the time, that Raptors pick seemed like it was going to be a very good pick. but the Raptors overachieved, so insert cliché here.

Yes, he did. You just were not paying attention because he came off the bench.


The 2013 season is exactly what people said would happen if James Harden were to get his own team. The only people who said otherwise are those who think people who come off the bench can't be stars (same people who think Ginobili isn't a star).

Look at his stats on his 2012 season, those are franchise player stats.

I seriously doubt that James Harden was considered an MVP candidate coming off the bench for OKC, but I will gladly ask for links/references to back this up.

Really, you never heard people debating whether Harden is actually better than Westbrook in 2012?

viewtopic.php?t=1150270


January 2012 is the date for that, major 100 + page debate about how good James Harden is. title is "James Harden is a superstar "


It's not like James Harden was a scrub prospect. The guy was the third pick in the draft. There were plenty of people who knew James Harden would be a franchise player if he got his own team. Most undersold it, but there was certainly a size-able minority.

If there were some columnist and fans who knew how good James Harden was, then the franchise that actually sees this guy practice every day and have a magnifying glass should know. If OKC did not think James Harden was a franchise player then that is incompetence on their part. This isn't a case of Jimmy Butler or Rudy Gobert coming out of nowhere.

[JasonStern]

Yes, he did. You just were not paying attention because he came off the bench.


The 2013 season is exactly what people said would happen if James Harden were to get his own team. The only people who said otherwise are those who think people who come off the bench can't be stars (same people who think Ginobili isn't a star).

Look at his stats on his 2012 season, those are franchise player stats.

I seriously doubt that James Harden was considered an MVP candidate coming off the bench for OKC, but I will gladly ask for links/references to back this up.

Really, you never heard people debating whether Harden is actually better than Westbrook in 2012?


viewtopic.php?t=1150270


January 2012 is the date for that, major debate about how good James Harden is.


It's not like James Harden was a scrub prospect. The guy was the third pick in the draft. There were plenty of people who knew James Harden would be a franchise player if he got his own team. Most undersold it, but there was certainly a size-able minority.

really? a RealGM thread debating whether or not Harden is a superstar? that's your evidence that, in 2012, everyone considered James Harden an MVP candidate? I can post a link to a RealGM thread that debates whether the Raptors were going to win the east last season. that doesn't mean that a majority of people realistically believed that they were the favorites.

and don't get me wrong - everyone knew Harden was talented. but a majority of people in 2012 viewed him as an all-star tier player - not a franchise player, not an "in the discussion for MVP" tier player. do you really think Presti would have traded him instead of Perkins, Ibaka, etc. if they knew as much as anonymous RealGM poster in hindsight?

[Takingbaconback]

Harden was complete garbage in playoffs though. Maybe if he didn't do so poorly in postseason OKC might have kept him around.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Harden was complete garbage in playoffs though. Maybe if he didn't do so poorly in postseason OKC might have kept him around.

He was pretty bad as the playoffs went on. I still think Artest had a lot to do with that.

[HeartBreakKid]

I seriously doubt that James Harden was considered an MVP candidate coming off the bench for OKC, but I will gladly ask for links/references to back this up.

Really, you never heard people debating whether Harden is actually better than Westbrook in 2012?


viewtopic.php?t=1150270


January 2012 is the date for that, major debate about how good James Harden is.


It's not like James Harden was a scrub prospect. The guy was the third pick in the draft. There were plenty of people who knew James Harden would be a franchise player if he got his own team. Most undersold it, but there was certainly a size-able minority.

really? a RealGM thread debating whether or not Harden is a superstar? that's your evidence that, in 2012, everyone considered James Harden an MVP candidate? I can post a link to a RealGM thread that debates whether the Raptors were going to win the east last season. that doesn't mean that a majority of people realistically believed that they were the favorites.

and don't get me wrong - everyone knew Harden was talented. but a majority of people in 2012 viewed him as an all-star tier player - not a franchise player, not an "in the discussion for MVP" tier player. do you really think Presti would have traded him instead of Perkins, Ibaka, etc. if they knew as much as anonymous RealGM poster in hindsight?

Oh, you're just changing your argument now.


First off - you said that James Harden was a different player that he was in OKC then he was in Houston. Which is false...hes the same bloody player. He did not just magically become better in 2013 then eh was in 2012, he dominated the game the same exact way in Houston as he did in OKC, the only difference was his touches and minutes increased. Nothing about his game changed in 2013 or even 2014 for that matter.


Second, I never mentioned the term MVP candidate. James Harden was not even an MVP candidate in his time in Houston before this year. I don't think you know what an MVP candidate is, you can be a superstar and not be an MVP candidate.

Third, I never said that "everyone" thought James Harden was an MVP candidate (I'm assuming you mean superstar or franchise player). I flat out said that there were some people who thought he was, I also inferred that you were clueless about how good James Harden was (which is correct even by your own accord). I stated in the very posts that you are quoting that the majority of people underrated Harden and overlooked him simply because he was a bench player. That is not the same thing as saying there was not a sizable minority of people who knew James Harden was good. Saying that OKC shouldn't get a hard time for not knowing how good James Harden is makes zero sense, like could you seriously break that down for me? If people who are not on the OKC Thunder know how good James Harden is, why on earth shouldn't people who are in the organization no? I would love a decent explanation for that.



Why would Presti care what the majority of people think? The fact that he plausibly made his decision based on what the majority think shows how dumb of a move that is. If a lot of people knew how good James Harden was (key phrase is a lot, not majority, you need to understand the difference between those, because you keep putting words in my mouth), why on earth wouldn't the bloody general manager of James Harden's team know how good he is?

Presti traded Harden because he did not know how good he was and he thought it was better to keep a big in Ibaka. The fact that he did not know how good Harden was serves a ton of reason for criticism, and you made an apologetic post that tries to dissuade people from criticizing the Thunder. James Harden did not come out of no where. There is no such thing as a player who creates his own shot who puts up 17 PPG on 66 TS% with 4 assist without him being a franchise player. He also DESTROYED the Spurs in the playoffs. An all-star player is someone like Jrue Holiday, James Harden was a franchise player for those who actually paid attention.

Also in that very thread there are columns, articles and studies that show that James Harden was a superstar(I also heard of this debate on two other message boards). I'm obviously not going to sit through all of those pages, as I was involved in those debates myself already. You can make it seem like James Harden came out of nowhere, but you're dead wrong and the proof is in the pudding.


And I know I am coming off chippy, but I don't like that you're making up things that I said.

[trickshot]

I seriously doubt that James Harden was considered an MVP candidate coming off the bench for OKC, but I will gladly ask for links/references to back this up.

Really, you never heard people debating whether Harden is actually better than Westbrook in 2012?


viewtopic.php?t=1150270


January 2012 is the date for that, major debate about how good James Harden is.


It's not like James Harden was a scrub prospect. The guy was the third pick in the draft. There were plenty of people who knew James Harden would be a franchise player if he got his own team. Most undersold it, but there was certainly a size-able minority.

really? a RealGM thread debating whether or not Harden is a superstar? that's your evidence that, in 2012, everyone considered James Harden an MVP candidate? I can post a link to a RealGM thread that debates whether the Raptors were going to win the east last season. that doesn't mean that a majority of people realistically believed that they were the favorites.

and don't get me wrong - everyone knew Harden was talented. but a majority of people in 2012 viewed him as an all-star tier player - not a franchise player, not an "in the discussion for MVP" tier player. do you really think Presti would have traded him instead of Perkins, Ibaka, etc. if they knew as much as anonymous RealGM poster in hindsight?

He's right. Harden was considered a superstar by most on here. This isnt even a matter of hindsight. That thread he speaks about was a long ass thread where the issue was discussed to death. You're shifting the goalposts a bit by changing the criteria to 'mvp candidate'. Not every superstar is a MVP candidate

EDIT: Beat me to it

[HeartBreakKid]

Excuse my spelling, was typing that big post on a smart phone. Edited some of it.

[Stealth1]

Every thread related to OKC this damn Harden crap comes up ad nausea. Ironically a post like mine as well. We need to break this cycle.

Not long to go before OKC decides. I can't see them not matching tbh. As flawed as he is defensively they have no other avenue to improve, and having his scoring when one of WB/KD is on the bench shouldn't be overlooked.

[MrTwister]

Did OKC already match Portland offer and if they didn't how much time they still have to do so?

[damecurry]

Did OKC already match Portland offer and if they didn't how much time they still have to do so?

I'm wondering this too, haven't seen news that they officially did and should have about 24 horus left I believe....

[TaylorMonkey]

I don't believe GSW was doing Lee any favors to be honest, I think they were doing it for money, which was the point, I was saying it was done because of money which is what many believe about the Thunder. And I really hope OKC doesn't match this offer, despite the fact that people will just scream "cheap" because they wouldn't give an absurd contract to a guy in Kanter who's been his entire career a net negative player.

It was a mutual thing. But of course GSW is looking to its own financial interests firsts so it was a win win. Lee definitely would have wanted a much larger role again which GSW couldn't provide or didn't feel was worth the money. If they buried him again this season, Lee might not have been able keep his chin up for the team quite as well.

The Warriors announcing their intentions early was certainly because Lee and his party had communicated his desire to leave (or regain an unlikely role much closer to his previous years), and they had come to a mutual agreement that served both parties.

I don't disagree about Kanter. He's basically a non-passing and non-playmaking poor man's (prime) David Lee with more ego issues. Losing an asset without anything back is tough though.

[CBA]

Oh the comparison wasn't a direct thing and I said as much. If you want to troll on that fine, have fun.

No...your previous posts are still available. You yourself said, "if you bash one, bash the other." This is obviously a direct comparison. It's also a dumb one. Lee was old, out of the rotation and overpaid. Harden was a young star player on the verge of becoming a superstar.

You're right that both moves were made for money. The difference is the Lee trade wasn't a horrendous move that could have dire consequences on the franchise. That's why one is bashed and the other isn't.

In the future, it would be smarter not to assume anyone who disagrees with you - in this case, pretty much everyone - is trolling. Maybe you're just wrong?

[Agenda42]

OKC really working down the shot clock on this one...

[Wizenheimer]

OKC really working down the shot clock on this one...

'reportedly' they have till 11:59 tonight, OKC time