Profound23 wrote:Ironically, the same comparisons were made about Harden when he left OKC.
He was never going to be a winner without KD and Westbrook.
Well, I don't think he is that much of a winner, at the highest level. You're as good as he is, with his bad defense, smoke and mirrors arm flailing to draw calls which doesn't work as much in the playoffs, and having to run so much through him without elite physical gifts and vision. Last year he played for D'Antoni who has pushed 50 wins with numerous pg's who weren't well thought of, and a couple years ago made the conference finals when the Clippers tried to mail it in for a game with a 3-1 series lead and then proceeded to choke the would be clinching game away while Harden remained on the bench. That's as far as I can see him getting.
And Harden never had a chance to win or lose by himself in OKC. Kyrie had that chance for years in Cleveland before LeBron arrived, and in plenty of games since, and has failed big time. Harden was always posting solid on/off #'s in OKC, and competitive with their other top talent, unlike Kyrie in Cleveland. He hasn't been able to beat out many ordinary talents in Cleveland through the years in that category. So it is a bad analogy. I think Harden not being a winner is spoken about in relative terms to the top talents. Kyrie is not a winner in relation to, for example, Khris Middleton, seemingly. That's what their advanced #'s suggest. It's debatable between him and Brogdon even, who was a rookie last year. Yet we're supposed to trade both of them, maybe Jabari/Thon too, and an unprotected 1st? Makes no sense. It's mostly about the hype of being 1st pick and then being associated with LeBron. Without those two things, people wouldn't view him as a needle mover we should trade a few useful players, one or more of whom could be needle movers in the future by contributing significantly in the playoffs by virtue of their ability AND circumstance.
Maxtradamus
