Photo

James Harden Traded to Houston


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#41 FlavaDave10

FlavaDave10

    Dave

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts
  • LocationBalmer

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:15 PM

And the Thunder thought he was very close to one too, and actually I'm pretty sure they would have given him a max contract if it weren't for the tax penalty. There is no doubt that they preferred keeping Harden to making this trade.

One of the picks is from the Raptors and is top 3 protected, it will likely be a late lottery pick. The other is from the Mavs and is top 20 protected so that's nothing great.


Gotcha. I think this trade was more about finding an approximate replacement for Harden (good offensive player) in Martin, getting a project guy in Lamb, and draft picks. Oh, and salary relief.

"We're not going to be f***ing suck this year" - Alex Ovechkin

 

@BaltimoreDavey


#42 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:47 PM

Gotcha. I think this trade was more about finding an approximate replacement for Harden (good offensive player) in Martin, getting a project guy in Lamb, and draft picks. Oh, and salary relief.


Pretty much.

Anyone saying this trade helps them in the short-term is disagreeing with their own very smart GM.

#43 FlavaDave10

FlavaDave10

    Dave

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts
  • LocationBalmer

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:13 PM

Pretty much.

Anyone saying this trade helps them in the short-term is disagreeing with their own very smart GM.


Not disagreeing with you there. But if any team has the talent to be able to replace a guy like Harden, it's probably the Thunder. I still have them challenging the Lakers. Houston should be very interesting to watch now. I like what they're doing. If nothing else, that's going to be a fun offense.

"We're not going to be f***ing suck this year" - Alex Ovechkin

 

@BaltimoreDavey


#44 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:15 PM

Not disagreeing with you there. But if any team has the talent to be able to replace a guy like Harden, it's probably the Thunder. I still have them challenging the Lakers. Houston should be very interesting to watch now. I like what they're doing. If nothing else, that's going to be a fun offense.


OKC is definitely still a contender, but I think their chances clearly just decreased.

#45 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,557 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 28 October 2012 - 08:52 PM

OKC is definitely still a contender, but I think their chances clearly just decreased.


Yeah, but they should still be in the conversation for now at least. And while it isn't certain by any means, Miami and LA's windows might only last the next two seasons. If that's the case, the Thunder will be very well positioned with a great core still in it's prime, some potential young (cheap) pieces that can compliment their foundation, and less immediate worries about the luxury tax.

#46 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 29 October 2012 - 02:49 PM

Hollinger (Insider): http://insider.espn.... ... kets-trade

That's a four-win drop, and at the margin you can see the impact this might have on their title chances -- 58 wins screams contender, while 54 hints more meekly at the chance of a deep playoff run. While it doesn't affect their projected seeding at all, the Thunder grade out as a less-formidable regular-season outfit, and that carries over to how well they project for the postseason, too.

All of which makes sense. You don't make a trade like this, largely motivated by cap considerations and draft picks, without taking a step back in the short term.



#47 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 29 October 2012 - 03:24 PM

And a great piece by Zach Lowe: http://www.grantland... ... on-rockets

But the fall from "true contender" to "fringe contender" is a steep one — one of the largest a team can take. The Harden deal unquestionably hurts the Thunder's odds of dethroning Miami. That is a giant, painful price to pay, and the size of it shows how concerned Oklahoma City's management was about the team's finances going forward.


  • BSLChrisStoner likes this

#48 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:29 PM

And yet another article talking about how this hurts the Thunder, this one by Bill Simmons:

http://www.grantland... ... n-disaster

#49 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:26 PM

Harden agrees to a 5/80 deal with Houston.

Pretty big difference between that and 4/54 from OKC, especially considering the lack of income tax in Texas.

#50 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:29 PM

Harden agrees to a 5/80 deal with Houston.

Pretty big difference between that and 4/54 from OKC, especially considering the lack of income tax in Texas.

Yea, huge difference there.

Was OKC not willing to give the 5th year or were they not able to do that?

#51 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:31 PM

Yea, huge difference there.

Was OKC not willing to give the 5th year or were they not able to do that?


Not able. There's a limit on 5 year extensions for guys on rookie contracts.

#52 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:33 PM

Not able. There's a limit on 5 year extensions for guys on rookie contracts.

But why could Houston offer it and not OKC?

#53 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:35 PM

But why could Houston offer it and not OKC?


Because they hadn't given a 5 year extension to anyone else.

OKC used theirs on Westbrook.

#54 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:31 PM

Because they hadn't given a 5 year extension to anyone else.

OKC used theirs on Westbrook.

Ok, gotcha.

So, Harden now doesn't look greedy for walking away from only 4.5 million.

I still don't think he's worth that. Going to be interesting to see him play the lead dog role.

Hopefully White can get over his traveling issues...he could be a beast.

#55 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,557 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:02 PM

19 pts/3 reb/5 ast in the 1st half of his Rockets debut.

#56 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

Martins PER: 18.3
Hardens PER: 19.3

OKC is 15-4.

#57 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:42 PM

Yes, and the Thunder would still be better with Harden, who besides just being better, is also a better fit. But sure, Martin is playing well, which isn't really a surprise. It's also not a surprise that the Thunder are playing well. They're still very talented and motivated, plus they now have experience to go along with their young legs.

#58 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:55 PM

Yes, and the Thunder would still be better with Harden, who besides just being better, is also a better fit. But sure, Martin is playing well, which isn't really a surprise. It's also not a surprise that the Thunder are playing well. They're still very talented and motivated, plus they now have experience to go along with their young legs.

Would they be 19-3, 20-2? :)

#59 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:02 AM

Would they be 19-3, 20-2? :)


Maybe. I don't know. They would be a better team, though and would have a better chance at winning it all.

#60 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 December 2012 - 08:56 AM

Maybe. I don't know. They would be a better team, though and would have a better chance at winning it all.

Certainly could be true.

But it also may not be...won't know until April/May.

So far, this team is averaging more points than last years team. They are giving up the same amount of points. Their FG% is up while their FG% defense is the same. Their 3pt% is way up, 3pt% def is the same. Turnovers are the same, both ways. Rebounding% is essentially the same but their rebounding is down a little more than 1 per game.

So, offense is up, def is the same and rebounding is barely down.

Edit: assists are also way up.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=