What's new
By:

David Locke on James Harden/Jazz

Beantown

Beantown

Well-Known Member
So on yesterday's podcast Locke was asked a fan question:

"What is your response to the Zach Lowe article that the Jazz should have pursued James Harden harder?

Locke"s response (paraphrasing):

"I can't say too much because of how much I know. :rolleyes: But the Jazz have always done things very quietly. So for Lowe to say that is completely wrong. The Jazz had a deal on the table and to be honest if Harden wasn't on the Rockets he would be on the Jazz."


So we assume the deal probably focused around either Kanter or Hayward and probably Burks with draft picks. So the question is did OKC like Houston's offer better or did Harden not want to sign here long term?


I'm thinking that OKC would have liked our offer better so it leads me to believe that Harden would not have signed a long term deal with the Jazz so they took their deal off the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BTP
I think it was Harden's decision. It could have been a great deal if the Jazz kept Favors and Millsap and gained Harden, OKC would gain a great young backup core and even Kanter to replace Perkins for 20-22 minutes. Rockets couldn't top Jazz' offer talent-wise. Harden looks like a picky guy for a situation when he's given Houston and SLC.


~I think he will eventually end up in LA.
 
We'll never know the details, but it really wouldn't have been difficult for us to give a better offer than Houston did. It seems like there was a real chance that Harden simply didn't want to play here long term. But we'll never know, and none of us will care after we land Wiggins.
 
Probably worked well for both parties. I like the direction of the Jazz now and Harden is in a great situation.

OKC just got screwed over. lol
 
Locke will say anything to make the Jazz seem 'correct' or 'right'.

I don't think I've ever heard him criticize the Jazz.
 
Xsy said:
Locke will say anything to make the Jazz seem 'correct' or 'right'.

I don't think I've ever heard him criticize the Jazz.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure he does. It's just like in a job interview when they ask you what your biggest weakness is and you hesitatingly admit that your biggest weakness is that you work too hard.
 
Beantown said:
So on yesterday's podcast Locke was asked a fan question:

"What is your response to the Zach Lowe article that the Jazz should have pursued James Harden harder?

Locke"s response (paraphrasing):

"I can't say too much because of how much I know. :rolleyes: But the Jazz have always done things very quietly. So for Lowe to say that is completely wrong. The Jazz had a deal on the table and to be honest if Harden wasn't on the Rockets he would be on the Jazz."


So we assume the deal probably focused around either Kanter or Hayward and probably Burks with draft picks. So the question is did OKC like Houston's offer better or did Harden not want to sign here long term?


I'm thinking that OKC would have liked our offer better so it leads me to believe that Harden would not have signed a long term deal with the Jazz so they took their deal off the table.
Click to expand...

I got the impression from what Locke said that the Jazz FO was too slow in okaying the package and Houston was quick to seal the deal.
Harden is a fantastic player but let's review the trade specifics:

"The Thunder acquired guards Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb, two first-round picks and a second-round pick in the surprising deal that was completed Saturday night. Oklahoma City also sent center Cole Aldrich and forwards Daequan Cook and Lazar Hayward to Houston."

Houston gave up NOTHING of consequence. Martin is a good vet, but he's on the decline and very expensive. Lamb was a #12 pick. I'll bet the Thunder wanted Kanter (center is their weakness), Burks and picks. If Utah had traded Kanter, I'm positive Jefferson would have been retained. I'll bet there was serious reservation over giving up Enes.

Does a team of Favors, Jefferson, Hayward, Harden and Mo Williams contend for a championship?
 
Wether OKC liked the Houston deal better or Harden wouldn't stay is all speculation. We will never really know.
 
Beantown said:
So on yesterday's podcast Locke was asked a fan question:

"What is your response to the Zach Lowe article that the Jazz should have pursued James Harden harder?

Locke"s response (paraphrasing):

"I can't say too much because of how much I know. :rolleyes: But the Jazz have always done things very quietly. So for Lowe to say that is completely wrong. The Jazz had a deal on the table and to be honest if Harden wasn't on the Rockets he would be on the Jazz."
Click to expand...
He never said that. He said the Jazz were deeply involved in the discussions and "there had to be some big decisions that had to be made from the Jazz standpoint, whether they want to max Harden, what they were willing to give up, who they were willing to trade, and I think there's a chance that while those discussions were going on Houston was able to jump."

So he never implied Utah had a deal on the table from their end. Sounds like OKC either communicated to Utah what they wanted in a trade or the Jazz were still determining what they were willing to present to the Thunder.

In any case, there's the phrase that the best deals are sometimes those that aren't made. Right now, I'm of that opinion. This trade would have taken the team in an entirely different direction. No way do you try to accumulate more assets when you have Harden. There's no way to "tank." So the Jazz either go with Jefferson/Favors or Favors/Millsap inside, Hayward at SF, Harden at SG/ballhandler and Mo as the PG/chucker. Perhaps Foye signs on as a 6th man. Jazz make the playoffs ahead of Houston or LA and lose in the 1st round.

No draft pick as that went to OKC. Second round Lindsey drafts Neto as our PGOTF.

Outlook for 2013/14: fighting for the 6th-8th seed. No cap space. With a MAX contract for Harden and a huge new deal for Jefferson, all money has to be reserved for re-upping Favors and Hayward. Jazz can only offer a 1-yr deal for a mid-priced vet. Draft pick expected to be in the #20-24 range.


I like what we have going now, even if it means we missed the playoffs last season and will be really bad this year. We have a great chance at picking up a FRANCHISE player in the draft (or potential HOF talent if drafting top-3). Jazz get him on a rookie deal. We get a chance to see how good Kanter might become (I think he's got all-star potential). The Jazz got good prospects at PG and backup C in 2013. The better of those picks likely would have gone to OKC in a Harden trade. They have 2 additional first-rounders by having cap space to use instead of having it tied up in a MAX deal with Harden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BTP
There was plenty of speculation Harden might have been "exposed" as a number one option and it was a fair argument. He rarely faced double teams in OKC, and played at least half his minutes against bench players. His finals performance was atrocious and perhaps scared Lindsey and KOC off from offering much of anything.

"I can't say too much because of how much I know. But the Jazz have always done things very quietly. So for Lowe to say that is completely wrong. The Jazz had a deal on the table and to be honest if Harden wasn't on the Rockets he would be on the Jazz."

That is a ridiculous statement by Locke.
 
Core4 said:
He never said that. He said the Jazz were deeply involved in the discussions and "there had to be some big decisions that had to be made from the Jazz standpoint, whether they want to max Harden, what they were willing to give up, who they were willing to trade, and I think there's a chance that while those discussions were going on Houston was able to jump."

So he never implied Utah had a deal on the table from their end. Sounds like OKC either communicated to Utah what they wanted in a trade or the Jazz were still determining what they were willing to present to the Thunder.

In any case, there's the phrase that the best deals are sometimes those that aren't made. Right now, I'm of that opinion. This trade would have taken the team in an entirely different direction. No way do you try to accumulate more assets when you have Harden. There's no way to "tank." So the Jazz either go with Jefferson/Favors or Favors/Millsap inside, Hayward at SF, Harden at SG/ballhandler and Mo as the PG/chucker. Perhaps Foye signs on as a 6th man. Jazz make the playoffs ahead of Houston or LA and lose in the 1st round.

No draft pick as that went to OKC. Second round Lindsey drafts Neto as our PGOTF.

Outlook for 2013/14: fighting for the 6th-8th seed. No cap space. With a MAX contract for Harden and a huge new deal for Jefferson, all money has to be reserved for re-upping Favors and Hayward. Jazz can only offer a 1-yr deal for a mid-priced vet. Draft pick expected to be in the #20-24 range.


I like what we have going now, even if it means we missed the playoffs last season and will be really bad this year. We have a great chance at picking up a FRANCHISE player in the draft (or potential HOF talent if drafting top-3). Jazz get him on a rookie deal. We get a chance to see how good Kanter might become (I think he's got all-star potential). The Jazz got good prospects at PG and backup C in 2013. The better of those picks likely would have gone to OKC in a Harden trade. They have 2 additional first-rounders by having cap space to use instead of having it tied up in a MAX deal with Harden.
Click to expand...

Alot of speculation in that but I agree that the team would be different right now than it is in cap space, picks, assets...
 
^^Read my post, Jazz4ever, Locke NEVER made that statement. It was a paraphrase from Beantown, Not an intentional mistake, but one that implies something COMPLETELY different from what Locke actually said.
 
Stoked said:
Alot of speculation in that but I agree that the team would be different right now than it is in cap space, picks, assets...
Click to expand...
Agree. My main point was to correct Beantown's paraphrasing which was misleading (unintentionally on his part). I listened to the podcast again and transcribed the words I put in quotation marks. Sheds a completely different light on the negotiations. Yes, it was Locke's opinion that had Harden not been traded to Houston, he would have been dealt to Utah. But from what he said, it sounds like the Jazz were still mulling over the trade terms, including whether or not to offer Harden a MAX deal. Obviously, he would have needed to agree to salary terms before the swap.
 
Core4 said:
Agree. My main point was to correct Beantown's paraphrasing which was misleading (unintentionally on his part). I listened to the podcast again and transcribed the words I put in quotation marks. Sheds a completely different light on the negotiations. Yes, it was Locke's opinion that had Harden not been traded to Houston, he would have been dealt to Utah. But from what he said, it sounds like the Jazz were still mulling over the trade terms, including whether or not to offer Harden a MAX deal. Obviously, he would have needed to agree to salary terms before the swap.
Click to expand...

I would like a Harden on the Jazz but I am completely content with the way the Jazz are heading. I expect the C6 to really start shinning by years end.
 
Core4 said:
^^Read my post, Jazz4ever, Locke NEVER made that statement. It was a paraphrase from Beantown, Not an intentional mistake, but one that implies something COMPLETELY different from what Locke actually said.
Click to expand...

Ok, I saw the quotes and they threw me.
 
Core4 said:
^^Read my post, Jazz4ever, Locke NEVER made that statement. It was a paraphrase from Beantown, Not an intentional mistake, but one that implies something COMPLETELY different from what Locke actually said.
Click to expand...

The deal on the table might be misquoted but Locke did say that if Harden isn't in a Rockets jersey he would be a Jazz man. Hinting that the Jazz were probably in 2nd position for the trade.
 
Beantown said:
The deal on the table might be misquoted but Locke did say that if Harden isn't in a Rockets jersey he would be a Jazz man. Hinting that the Jazz were probably in 2nd position for the trade.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he never said the Jazz actually had a deal on the table. Jazz were "heavily involved in discussions." That's a far cry from offering X, Y and Z. He said they hadn't decided if they wanted to give Harden a max deal, which is what he wanted. So Jazz tell Harden they're only going to offer him $12M. Harden says he'd rather become a FA. Utah backs away from the deal and OKC re-opens talks with Houston or calls other teams. Or maybe OKC wanted Enes and Hayward. Utah says that's too much and they'll come back with a counter.

This was NEVER presented by Locke as OKC and Harden making a decision between offers from Houston and Utah.

Anyway, my argument isn't with you..I guess it's with Locke. I think he contradicts himself. First he states his opinion that if Harden weren't a Rocket, he'd be with the Jazz. Then he states Utah was in "discussions" but had a lot of decisions that had to be made (assets to give up and salary to offer Harden).
 
Last edited:
Core4 said:
Yes, but he never said the Jazz actually had a deal on the table. Jazz were "heavily involved in discussions." That's a far cry from offering X, Y and Z. He said they hadn't decided if they wanted to give Harden a max deal, which is what he wanted. So Jazz tell Harden they're only going to offer him $12M. Harden says he'd rather become a FA. Utah backs away from the deal and OKC re-opens talks with Houston or calls other teams. Or maybe OKC wanted Enes and Hayward. Utah says that's too much and they'll come back with a counter.

This was NEVER presented by Locke as OKC and Harden making a decision between offers from Houston and Utah.
Click to expand...

fair enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top