Originally Posted by
Teo9969
Some thoughts that initially cross my mind about all this:
1. If Harden had played the last 4 years with the Dallas Mavericks, was 6MOY and played exactly as he has in OKC the past 4 years, he's worth no more than $11.5M/year for OKC. The fact that Presti extended ~$13.5M/year to Harden shows a lot of commitment to Harden. And I think growing up in OKC made that extra $2M/year worth it...but I don't see how you can justify paying a player $4M/year more than the max you would consider paying him under other circumstances.
2. I've said since the day we knew this Harden/Ibaka thing would be an issue (starting in the 2010/11 season) that if both players are playing at an equal level (and admittedly, Harden is at a slightly higher level than Ibaka right now, though Ibaka's ceiling is higher) you have to take Ibaka.
Why? Because of Kevin Durant. KD is a 3 that can play both the 2 and the 4 incredibly well, but his most natural talents are more suited to playing the 2...This makes Harden more expendable than Ibaka. Furthermore, Russell Westbrook is also a fantastic 2 guard. So Harden has 2 all-stars who can pick up the slack at his position. Ibaka? Nobody on the team can fill in for Ibaka when he's not doing what he does best.
3. The most important and best way for the Thunder to mitigate the loss of James Harden is not by replacing him. It's by fixing the holes that he covered as a player (and that were exposed by Miami in the Finals). OKC has to has to has to establish an offensive system that can create without the ridiculous athleticism of Durant/Westbrook/Harden. They showed flashes against San Antonio but seemed to move away from it against Miami (though I have a suspicion that Miami simply disrupted the system with fantastic defense). OKC is still in a position to win it all this year if, as it should, everything about the team improves. Arguably every player on the team should play better than they did last year except for Collison (who is probably exiting his prime at this point) and maybe Perkins (who will likely maintain his level of play). The idea that Durant and Westbrook still have a few years before they hit their stride should be comforting to OKC fans who think that the entire season is lost. Unfortunately, Miami should be better this year as well, and the Lakers got pretty damn stout.
4. Maynor and PJIII's jobs are now more important. Martin should be pretty helpful as a stop gap for Harden, but he likely won't be enough based on learning-curve and the fact that he would have to be resigned for the future. Speaking of Maynor, if he proves himself worthy this year, we can now reasonably afford resigning him. Better still is the possibility that Jackson shows himself to be a quality back-up PG and we can use Maynor to leverage a good trade.
5. The Most important thing in all of this is seeing how committed Presti is to the long term. This trade makes 2 things apparent: 1. Presti is in OKC to stay. I say that because Presti just hurt the possibility instant gratification (the chance of winning a couple titles over the next 3 years) for point 2. OKC is leveraged for so much flexibility from this trade. OKC can develop long-term plans with more ease, and they can make more low risk/high reward type investments in future players. OKC fans may be moaning the loss of an Icon right now, I myself am...but the OKC Thunder won BIG BIG BIG with this trade.
In 4 years, OKC is going to have to make some major moves to continue competing for titles. Simply put, that task would likely have been near impossible at that juncture after being battered by the luxury tax the previous 3 seasons and the very real threat of repeat offender making putting together a great roster impossible.
Keeping Harden was a lot like OU fans thinking they would blowout Notre Dame. It certainly was a possibility, and if things had broke just right, could have well become a reality. The probability, however, was never really that high. It's just disappointing when fairy-tale worlds end up being turned into dust.
Bookmarks