Netaman wrote:NyCeEvO wrote:Netaman wrote:
I see it similarly. I saw someone say that the best thing the nets accomplished was diversifying and I agree with that entirely. they didn't need to open a championship window they needed to reinforce the one already open and make it a little less volatile. I think it's a big win for the nets to add 2 years of Curry and 4 of Simmons, plus whatever they do with the picks, but i'd also agree it's hard for it to not be a bigger win for a team that probably went from not having a championship window to having one now.
i do think there are valid concerns re: what harden is at this point. last year he was intentionally out of shape and still looked a lot better than he has at any time this year. beyond the nets situation he has clearly been frustrated with how the game is getting called now and his lack of FT. but for Embiid the time is now and you would think there will be a honeymoon period where Harden is on his best behavior like he was with the nets last year.
I have no problem with us trading Harden, especially given his current form. And I agree that there certainly are benefits to having a more balanced team. However, if Harden wins a title with Philly, it’ll be a terrible look for Marks. He’s turned a division rival into a firm contender. He better pray it doesn’t work out for Philly.
not sure i agree. it would have been a hell of a bigger screw up if Harden declined his option and left for nothing or a lot less than they got. or if he was prepared to go even more awol tanking the season.
I don’t think Harden would tank a season. IMO, the likelihood of Harden leaving depended on Kyrie’s availability. If the mandates were to be lifted before or during the playoffs and we’re able to run out a Big 3 full-time, our odds to win dramatically improve. We’d probably favorites again next year and if Nash happened to be the reason for our downfall, the Big 3 would just tell Marks to let him go.
we can question whether it was wise to make the harden deal in the first place (either argument is fair).
we can also debate Simmons + Curry + picks vs. Allen + Levert + more picks (again either argument is fair).
i don't think anyone can argue that Harden created 2 ridiculous situations the nets had to contend with - demanding for trades to and from in the span of 13 months while under contract.
I’d trade for Harden 100 times out of 100.
– Dinwiddie was returning from an ACL, but looked like he was going to leave for free agency anyway.
– Levert is my guy, but he was very injury prone.
– Kyrie was very injury prone.
– Allen is great, but was never going to be as impactful as Harden (and I doubt he’ll even reach what Simmons has already become).
Harden was the ironman superstar who would provide insurance for injury-prone ballhandlers.
I don’t regret for trading for Harden and giving up our assets. Even though I wish he was more mature and patient about the situation, the biggest detriment to our success (outside of Nash) was Kyrie’s unavailability for home games due to the mandate. If the mandate allowed unvaccinated NYC players to play as it inexplicably does for unvaccinated visiting players, we’re probably in a very different situation as a team.
