James Harden Traded....Others to Houston

[dankrutka]

This summarized exactly how I feel about the Harden trade: With the James Harden trade, Oklahoma City just handed the Western Conference to the Lakers - Grantland

It especially bothers me how the team was unwilling to spend while making a profit. Owning a sports team is not, and never had been, a long-term profitable business (see here if you need an explanation on that claim: Malcolm Gladwell on the NBA lockout - Grantland). You own a team as a community asset, which we've invested in with an arena. As Simmons said, what the Thunder did in giving up Harden is literally unprecedented in NBA history. No contender has ever traded a star for financial reasons. Everyone is trying to explain this away by looking at the bright side of Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, the picks, and the Ibaka signing, but all of those contain an element of risk. Harden was a sure thing - a top 3 shooting guard in the NBA who fit in well with the team. I really hope a couple of those risks work out (the most likely being that Ibaka grows defensively and offensively this season, but he showed little growth last season so it is hard to predict. He looked very good in the preseason), or the Thunder could have just given up one or more NBA titles.

[Hawk405359]

Someone school me, how would Harden not have known about this trade and previously agreed to it? Do they sign that right away with their agent?

It's pretty rare that players have a choice in trade decisions. The only bargaining power a player might have is refusal to sign contract with a new team, ala Dwight Howard, which would limit the options. Often, the players just get the call and have to leave.

[LandRunOkie]

No contender has ever traded a star for financial reasons.

The new CBA contains the most punitive salary cap in all of American pro sports leagues ever. So the past is irrelevant on this issue.

[OKCisOK4me]

Harden didn't really have a say in being traded. He was a restricted free agent, which means the Thunder were the only team that could negotiate with him. He can be traded at any time without having a say in it. Presti mentioned it to him at the end of the process, but he didn't have to. Now that Harden's rights have been traded to the Rockets they exclusively own his rights and will be signing him to a 5 year extension of almost $80 million in the next day or two.

So Harden didn't have any say on taking a lower paid contract from us versus a higher paid contract from Houston? So Houston throws out their terms for James Harden and since OKC couldn't match but specifically didn't want to match, without going into the luxury tax, James was essentially taken away from us without his overall consent? Considering he would have been free and clear to remain with the Thunder for one more year, under contract, or even be traded in February, it was not his decision but the teams owners and his agent? Clear this more for me AND the general public of OKC who are saddened that James would take more when all he wanted to do was stay here in OKC and build championships :-)

[windowphobe]

The other angle is based, not on money, but on time. Under the current CBA, a team can have only one player on a five-year contract, and for OKC, that's Russell Westbrook. (KD got his under the previous CBA, so it's grandfathered in.) So OKC could have offered more money per year, but only for four years. Houston didn't have any players on a five-year contract, so they're free to offer one to Harden once they acquired his rights.

[Snowman]

Someone school me, how would Harden not have known about this trade and previously agreed to it? Do they sign that right away with their agent?

I would expect most of the trade rules come from the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the league, with deviations from that in the players contract. You probably need to be a marquee player to get a major change to how the trade process normally works, like Kobe Bryant can only be trade to a team he agrees to be traded to.

[OKCisOK4me]

I would expect most of the trade rules come from the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the league, with deviations from that in the players contract. You probably need to be a marquee player to get a major change to how the trade process normally works, like Kobe Bryant can only be trade to a team he agrees to be traded to.

Yeah, I'd be peeved if I were Kobe and had to go play for the Bobcats, lol.

[dankrutka]

So Harden didn't have any say on taking a lower paid contract from us versus a higher paid contract from Houston? So Houston throws out their terms for James Harden and since OKC couldn't match but specifically didn't want to match, without going into the luxury tax, James was essentially taken away from us without his overall consent? Considering he would have been free and clear to remain with the Thunder for one more year, under contract, or even be traded in February, it was not his decision but the teams owners and his agent? Clear this more for me AND the general public of OKC who are saddened that James would take more when all he wanted to do was stay here in OKC and build championships :-)

First, Sid asked for an explanation of how free agency works and that's what I explained. Everything i said is accurate.

You're talking about whether Harden could have taken the deal offered to him, which of course is true. The rest of your questions seem to indicate that you don't understand the parameters for restricted free agents. You understand that Houston never offered Harden anything prior to the trade, right? That would be illegal under the CBA. The only team James was allowed to negotiate with were the Thunder. Presti ended that and decided to trade Harden. Harden had nothing to do with the trade. That was 100% on Presti. (Of course, Harden could have accepted Presti's existing offer, but that doesn't mean he chose Houston.)

[Teo9969]

First, Sid asked for an explanation of how free agency works and that's what I explained. Everything i said is accurate.

You're talking about whether Harden could have taken the deal offered to him, which of course is true. The rest of your questions seem to indicate that you don't understand the parameters for restricted free agents. You understand that Houston never offered Harden anything prior to the trade, right? That would be illegal under the CBA. The only team James was allowed to negotiate with were the Thunder. Presti ended that and decided to trade Harden. Harden had nothing to do with the trade. That was 100% on Presti. (Of course, Harden could have accepted Presti's existing offer, but that doesn't mean he chose Houston.)

Harden has never been a free-agent since signing his rookie contract, and he likely won't be one until the end of the '18 season (unless he has a player option from Houston in his extension that Houston is expected to sign before the 31st).

Harden is under contract and can't receive offers until Thursday, he can *only* sign an extension of his current contract. If he is not signed to an extension by 11:59:59 Wed *then* he becomes a free agent. He is a *restricted* free-agent if the contract owner has already issued an offer sheet of at least the Qualifying Offer of ~$7.6M.

If he is under contract, then the only way he has a say in whether or not he is traded is if there is a trade restriction in his contract. There are none in Harden's so he has no choice.

Restricted free-agents are allowed to talk to other teams, but the current contract owner has the right to match that offer.

[Teo9969]

This summarized exactly how I feel about the Harden trade: With the James Harden trade, Oklahoma City just handed the Western Conference to the Lakers - Grantland

It especially bothers me how the team was unwilling to spend while making a profit. Owning a sports team is not, and never had been, a long-term profitable business (see here if you need an explanation on that claim: Malcolm Gladwell on the NBA lockout - Grantland). You own a team as a community asset, which we've invested in with an arena. As Simmons said, what the Thunder did in giving up Harden is literally unprecedented in NBA history. No contender has ever traded a star for financial reasons. Everyone is trying to explain this away by looking at the bright side of Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, the picks, and the Ibaka signing, but all of those contain an element of risk. Harden was a sure thing - a top 3 shooting guard in the NBA who fit in well with the team. I really hope a couple of those risks work out (the most likely being that Ibaka grows defensively and offensively this season, but he showed little growth last season so it is hard to predict. He looked very good in the preseason), or the Thunder could have just given up one or more NBA titles.

1. LandRunOkie is right...and I'm sorry, but OKC could not afford it. You are free to think OKC can afford $125M rosters + coaches to *maybe* win a championship, but that's probably not reality. And that $125M roster is *before* you have to re-sign all 4 major players in 4 years and pay the repeat offender...by then we're looking at $150 to $175M rosters + coaches. And all that luxury tax money is going into other NBA markets.

2. OKC could probably not sustain all 4 contracts in the long run with the Big 4 and field a competitive team. Exceptions are a lot harder to manipulate now, and OKC is going to need the flexibility in 4 years when Durant and Westbrook's contracts come up at the same time, and Ibaka's is due a year later.

3. I'm going to repeat this again, and if you want to know the reasoning, read up in the thread: Ibaka is far more crucial to the Thunder being a championship ball club than Harden. Anybody trying to debate otherwise, doesn't understand how horrible the defense on the Thunder would be if you removed Ibaka, and they don't understand the abilities of Durant and Westbrook at all.

4. The key to winning an NBA Championship with Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka on the roster is not trying to load up with high-profile players...It's developing the things that need to be developed on this team. I'm going to go out on a limb at this point and predict that Harden's departure accelerates this teams development, particularly for Ibaka, and especially for the offensive system.

Below is a more detailed response directed @ Simmons article:

The "breaking up the young brothers" narrative only works if Harden cannot be replaced by another brother of the same sort. Ibaka, Lamb, PJIII and any other young gun they can grab with their new lottery picks can be a replacement character in the narrative. Oh, and by the way Bill Simmons, just who the **** do you think evaluated KD, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka? You think Presti just all of the sudden lost the ability to perceive what young talent has the chance to become an all-star? He knows what he's giving up, and he knows what he's bringing in. He's batting 1.000 on his Top 20 draft picks:

2007: Kevin Durant
2008: Russell Westbrook
2009: James Harden
2010: Eric Bledsoe

Also, Harden is great, but calling him a definite Top 20 player coming off the bench is borderline insane. Put anybody with unique talent on a squad with KD and Westbrook and send him against the league's 2nd team and you're likely going to get this kind of production. And maybe he develops into that...but he has yet to make an all-star roster.

Perhaps the worst part of Simmons article is his inability to understand the predicament the Thunder are in off the court as well as on the court.

On the court OKC doesn't need the offense of Harden expressly...why would they when they have the best scorer in basketball and possibly the history thereof. They need a system that makes the best use of their players by creating easy shots, something they don't have right now. They also need defense that is more effective and allows them to get out into transition quicker. Harden isn't a particularly great defender. Simmons supremely undervalues the importance of Ibaka to this team, and does not realize that OKC has far more potential keeping Ibaka than keeping Harden. He also doesn't understand just how young Ibaka is as a basketball player and how quickly he has progressed. I also think he failed to read the Zach Lowe article by saying that Ibaka only had a puncher's chance of reaching the level he needs to reach for the Thunder to make a serious run at Miami. I think it is very reasonable to assume that Ibaka will make it there in the next few years (incidentally, when Durant and Westbrook are gearing up for their prime years).

Off the court, Simmons is simply wrong. OKC can't afford the high-end luxury tax over the long term. People are looking at this year and maybe next year. Presti is looking at the next 10 years. He also knows as long as he has KD and Westbrook and the flexibility to put the pieces in place around those two (which he would not have sniffed if he gave Harden a max contract), OKC will be in contention to play for and win NBA titles. Simmons doesn't realize how important the 4th - 8th best players on your roster are and how expensive they can be. Sefolosha is not affordable with Harden/Westbrook/Durant, neither is Maynor, not to mention the lack of flexibility with the reality that in '15/'16, OKC would have been ~ $2.5M under $70M with just FOUR PLAYERS...you can't afford that.

My final point to Simmons's argument: It was never just the Big 3 in OKC. It has always been the Big 4. Anything else is revisionist history. Turns out, the Big 4 is unaffordable for a small-market team and likely unsustainable for any NBA team. Presti hitched his wagon to Ibaka instead of Harden. He hitched his wagon to defense with Scott Brooks as coach. And he hitched it in mid-August. He's had 2 months to realize who Presti deemed more important. This really isn't that shocking.

[dcsooner]

1. LandRunOkie is right...and I'm sorry, but OKC could not afford it. You are free to think OKC can afford $125M rosters + coaches to *maybe* win a championship, but that's probably not reality. And that $125M roster is *before* you have to re-sign all 4 major players in 4 years and pay the repeat offender...by then we're looking at $150 to $175M rosters + coaches. And all that luxury tax money is going into other NBA markets.

2. OKC could probably not sustain all 4 contracts in the long run with the Big 4 and field a competitive team. Exceptions are a lot harder to manipulate now, and OKC is going to need the flexibility in 4 years when Durant and Westbrook's contracts come up at the same time, and Ibaka's is due a year later.

3. I'm going to repeat this again, and if you want to know the reasoning, read up in the thread: Ibaka is far more crucial to the Thunder being a championship ball club than Harden. Anybody trying to debate otherwise, doesn't understand how horrible the defense on the Thunder would be if you removed Ibaka, and they don't understand the abilities of Durant and Westbrook at all.

4. The key to winning an NBA Championship with Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka on the roster is not trying to load up with high-profile players...It's developing the things that need to be developed on this team. I'm going to go out on a limb at this point and predict that Harden's departure accelerates this teams development, particularly for Ibaka, and especially for the offensive system.

Below is a more detailed response directed @ Simmons article:

Extremely insightful post with reasoned opinion

[BoulderSooner]

Someone school me, how would Harden not have known about this trade and previously agreed to it? Do they sign that right away with their agent?

players in all 4 sports (with few exceptions) don't have any say if they get traded or where they get traded to

[BoulderSooner]

1. LandRunOkie is right...and I'm sorry, but OKC could not afford it. You are free to think OKC can afford $125M rosters + coaches to *maybe* win a championship, but that's probably not reality. And that $125M roster is *before* you have to re-sign all 4 major players in 4 years and pay the repeat offender...by then we're looking at $150 to $175M rosters + coaches. And all that luxury tax money is going into other NBA markets.

2. OKC could probably not sustain all 4 contracts in the long run with the Big 4 and field a competitive team. Exceptions are a lot harder to manipulate now, and OKC is going to need the flexibility in 4 years when Durant and Westbrook's contracts come up at the same time, and Ibaka's is due a year later.

3. I'm going to repeat this again, and if you want to know the reasoning, read up in the thread: Ibaka is far more crucial to the Thunder being a championship ball club than Harden. Anybody trying to debate otherwise, doesn't understand how horrible the defense on the Thunder would be if you removed Ibaka, and they don't understand the abilities of Durant and Westbrook at all.

4. The key to winning an NBA Championship with Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka on the roster is not trying to load up with high-profile players...It's developing the things that need to be developed on this team. I'm going to go out on a limb at this point and predict that Harden's departure accelerates this teams development, particularly for Ibaka, and especially for the offensive system.

Below is a more detailed response directed @ Simmons article:

a couple of things okc was 100% willing to spend they offered (depending on who you believe) 53-55.5 mil for 4 years giving that contract while still paying KD RW and Serge would have been unprecedented ...

okc was NEVER going to be in the 125+ range as a spender ... the cap and tax number will continue to go up and will take a massive jump in the 2015-2016 season when the NBA signs its new national TV deal ..

westbrook and Ibaka are FA in the same year durrant is a FA a year earlier ... westbrook and durant won't be able to get huge raises in their new deals they will get the same yearly raises they are getting now ..... Ibaka would also only be able to get a "small raise his next deal"

3. is right on the money

4. is also correct .. if they signed harden the roster would be stuck for the long term ... now they have the ability to sign full midlevel vets and continue to add depth and quality players ..

[BoulderSooner]

This summarized exactly how I feel about the Harden trade: With the James Harden trade, Oklahoma City just handed the Western Conference to the Lakers - Grantland

It especially bothers me how the team was unwilling to spend while making a profit. Owning a sports team is not, and never had been, a long-term profitable business (see here if you need an explanation on that claim: Malcolm Gladwell on the NBA lockout - Grantland). You own a team as a community asset, which we've invested in with an arena. As Simmons said, what the Thunder did in giving up Harden is literally unprecedented in NBA history. No contender has ever traded a star for financial reasons. Everyone is trying to explain this away by looking at the bright side of Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, the picks, and the Ibaka signing, but all of those contain an element of risk. Harden was a sure thing - a top 3 shooting guard in the NBA who fit in well with the team. I really hope a couple of those risks work out (the most likely being that Ibaka grows defensively and offensively this season, but he showed little growth last season so it is hard to predict. He looked very good in the preseason), or the Thunder could have just given up one or more NBA titles.

okc was 100% willing to spend big on harden .. 53-55.5 mil for 4 years ... is a huge offer in the context of the Thunder ..

i would bet that is was more than presti wanted to pay .. and more than presti thinks harden is worth to the Thunder ...

[Just the facts]

It seems in general that the big money people in OKC don't always spend their money to maximize profit, but instead spend a portion of it ensuring that the rest of us have a little bit better quality of life. They tried something that wasn't financially feasible from a pure cost/benefit standpoint and it didn't work out. Thanks for trying.

[bluedogok]

players in all 4 sports (with few exceptions) don't have any say if they get traded or where they get traded to

Baseball is typically the only one with a hard no-trade clause and veteran exceptions where if the player has 10 years in the majors with 5 years on the same team (the 10/5 rule) they can veto a trade. Many players also have no trade clauses in their contracts, of course the player can waive such a clause as well as what happened in the case of Josh Beckett (Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford and Nick Punto) being traded from the Red Sox to the Dodgers this past season. Beckett had a no trade clause but waived it allowing the trade to go through, not sure of the other players had no trade clauses or not. The NBA has some limited no trade clauses in specific player contracts, I don't think they have a version of the 10/5 rule in place.

[BoulderSooner]

Baseball is typically the only one with a hard no-trade clause and veteran exceptions where if the player has 10 years in the majors with 5 years on the same team (the 10/5 rule) they can veto a trade. Many players also have no trade clauses in their contracts, of course the player can waive such a clause as well as what happened in the case of Josh Beckett (Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford and Nick Punto) being traded from the Red Sox to the Dodgers this past season. Beckett had a no trade clause but waived it allowing the trade to go through, not sure of the other players had no trade clauses or not. The NBA has some limited no trade clauses in specific player contracts, I don't think they have a version of the 10/5 rule in place.

right wasn't saying other wise ... the nba in the old system made it hard to get a no trade clause ... only Kobe Bryant and 1 other player had a no trade in the old CBA because you had to have 10 years service and then you had to resign with your team as a UFA ... and in the old system most guys that wanted to stay with the same team just signed contract extensions

[dankrutka]

The reason I've disagreed with Ibaka over Harden is its potential vs. reality. Ibaka is not a great defender yet. He's good, not great. He swats a ton of shots (and that's why he gets so much attention, but all serious NBA analytical guys agree with this - there was just a good piece on Grantland about Ibaka always getting out of position), but he frequently gets out of position and struggles to guard one-on-one. He's also never been consistent offensively. I hope he develops in these areas (and he might), but NBA history has been scattered with athletic big men that never fulfilled their potential. It's a risky move. Signing Harden pretty much guarantees the team competes yearly for a title. I hope it works out though...

[Teo9969]

The reason I've disagreed with Ibaka over Harden is its potential vs. reality. Ibaka is not a great defender yet. He's good, not great. He swats a ton of shots (and that's why he gets so much attention, but all serious NBA analytical guys agree with this - there was just a good piece on Grantland about Ibaka always getting out of position), but he frequently gets out of position and struggles to guard one-on-one. He's also never been consistent offensively. I hope he develops in these areas (and he might), but NBA history has been scattered with athletic big men that never fulfilled their potential. It's a risky move. Signing Harden pretty much guarantees the team competes yearly for a title. I hope it works out though...

Yep...only runner-up to the defensive player of the year...only behind Lebron freaking James in votes for All-NBA defense from NBA COACHES!

Is he an all-time defender yet? No. Is he a great defender? This is not even debatable.

[BoulderSooner]

The reason I've disagreed with Ibaka over Harden is its potential vs. reality. Ibaka is not a great defender yet. He's good, not great. He swats a ton of shots (and that's why he gets so much attention, but all serious NBA analytical guys agree with this - there was just a good piece on Grantland about Ibaka always getting out of position), but he frequently gets out of position and struggles to guard one-on-one. He's also never been consistent offensively. I hope he develops in these areas (and he might), but NBA history has been scattered with athletic big men that never fulfilled their potential. It's a risky move. Signing Harden pretty much guarantees the team competes yearly for a title. I hope it works out though...

but the thunder is a bad defensive team .. if you take away blocked shots ..

[Teo9969]

a couple of things okc was 100% willing to spend they offered (depending on who you believe) 53-55.5 mil for 4 years giving that contract while still paying KD RW and Serge would have been unprecedented ...

okc was NEVER going to be in the 125+ range as a spender ... the cap and tax number will continue to go up and will take a massive jump in the 2015-2016 season when the NBA signs its new national TV deal ..

How massive of a jump are we talking? If we're talking a salary cap of $67.5 and a Luxury Tax line of $85, then the Thunder made a huge mistake giving Harden away.

[dankrutka]

Yep...only runner-up to the defensive player of the year...only behind Lebron freaking James in votes for All-NBA defense from NBA COACHES!

Is he an all-time defender yet? No. Is he a great defender? This is not even debatable.

Except if you ask every expert that does analytics on defense. Coaches and the media operate on simple narratives. Derrick Rose won a an MVP over LeBron. Karl Malone won one over MJ. Every person in the world knew who the most valuable players were... Coaches and the media get this stuff wrong all the time.

John Hollinger, probably the most respected analyst of the NBA, has said many times that Ibaka is overrated as a defender. Ibaka blocked shots so he must be a great defender. Read this article about how he needs to learn how to be in position: Serge Ibaka must improve for the Thunder to continue to contend for the NBA championship - Grantland.

Again, Ibaka has great potential and does some things well, but if you think he is already a GREAT defender then you're not factoring in everything.

[dankrutka]

but the thunder is a bad defensive team .. if you take away blocked shots ..

Yeah, but this is partly Ibaka's fault for constatly getting out of position and getting beat one-on-one. Of course, his incredible ability to block shots makes the defense better, but he needs to improve in other areas to be an elite defender.

[OKCisOK4me]

First, Sid asked for an explanation of how free agency works and that's what I explained. Everything i said is accurate.

You're talking about whether Harden could have taken the deal offered to him, which of course is true. The rest of your questions seem to indicate that you don't understand the parameters for restricted free agents. You understand that Houston never offered Harden anything prior to the trade, right? That would be illegal under the CBA. The only team James was allowed to negotiate with were the Thunder. Presti ended that and decided to trade Harden. Harden had nothing to do with the trade. That was 100% on Presti. (Of course, Harden could have accepted Presti's existing offer, but that doesn't mean he chose Houston.)

Thanks for the more detailed explanation. Even after four seasons of having this team, I don't follow the CBA outlines or how and why deals and trades work out the way they do. I just like to watch basketball.

[BoulderSooner]

How massive of a jump are we talking? If we're talking a salary cap of $67.5 and a Luxury Tax line of $85, then the Thunder made a huge mistake giving Harden away.

don't think they "gave" harden away .... i think they got the better of the deal by a lot