What's new
By:

OKC Trade is a glimpse into our future

Sneakers said:
This shows the downside to the 'Thunder model'. When you have 4 good young players who all want big money something's got to give.

Navigating the contracts of the core four down the road is the elephant in the room right now.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is abso****inglutely stupid. The "downside" of the 'Thunder model' is that you have 4 max-ish players? How terrible.

And The Four as a whole haven't proven anything. If they all turn into max-ish players, we should all be thrilled. Anyone that disagrees is too sentimental or has an extra chromosome.
 
Yeah okay so they haven't proves anything now.

But they're all going to get better, they all have agents, and they're all going to want to get paid. The point is if you don't do it right this is what happens. I'd say it's absolutely ****ing stupid to close your eyes and pretend we won't have some crucial tricky financial waters to navigate down the road. Who are you kidding?
 
Do you think OKC fans are thrilled they traded their 6th man Olympian and took a huge step back in the title race? That's what I thought
 
AKMVP said:
I think they did not take any steps back. K.Mart is more then capable to provide scoring punch of the bench and J.Lamb will be better then Harden IMHO.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think harden is kinda overrated. Lamb is already a better shooter, and can already play off the ball more effectively than harden IMO. Thunder already have two of the best playmakers in the game
 
LazyD said:
I agree. I think harden is kinda overrated. Lamb is already a better shooter, and can already play off the ball more effectively than harden IMO. Thunder already have two of the best playmakers in the game
Click to expand...

I think it's a little early to be making definitive comparisons between Lamb and Harden when Lamb hasn't played his first game yet, that counts.
 
Sneakers said:
Yeah okay so they haven't proves anything now.

But they're all going to get better, they all have agents, and they're all going to want to get paid. The point is if you don't do it right this is what happens. I'd say it's absolutely ****ing stupid to close your eyes and pretend we won't have some crucial tricky financial waters to navigate down the road. Who are you kidding?
Click to expand...

The bad position is to have a bunch of players that have shown flashes and have "potential" enter free agency and you're forced to match toxic offers for players you're not sure of or let a player you like walk.

The Thunder have an annual DPOY candidate, an annual MVP candidate, one of the most athletic and productive players in the game, and had the most efficient player in the NBA. I haven't the foggiest idea how in the **** there's a downside in there. Especially since OKC got 4 good chances to replace the role of Harden (bench scorer). Having too many good players is one hell of a problem to have.
 
NUMBERICA said:
The bad position is to have a bunch of players that have shown flashes and have "potential" enter free agency and you're forced to match toxic offers for players you're not sure of or let a player you like walk.

The Thunder have an annual DPOY candidate, an annual MVP candidate, one of the most athletic and productive players in the game, and had the most efficient player in the NBA. I haven't the foggiest idea how in the **** there's a downside in there. Especially since OKC got 4 good chances to replace the role of Harden (bench scorer). Having too many good players is one hell of a problem to have.
Click to expand...

Um so what I said was that the downside to having the good young players is the high stakes financial dire straits you find yourself in... one bad contract and the whole thing blows up. Your point is that it's not bad to have a multitude of good players? Gee that's great but its completely unrelated to the point I'm trying to make... financial prudence. Amazing insight though.
 
bjunior said:
It's all about winning championships.

With this trade OKC made a step back. You can have a good team and potential for 50 years and win nothing. Like we do ))

Draft picks is 50/50 for future and rookies won't win you anything.

They have a good team anyway, but with Harden they had more chances to win titles.
Click to expand...

Magic Johnson would argue with you. I get your point but one player doesn't win a championship. Harden is a good player and may become a great player but 16.5 points a game certainly isn't deserving of a MAX contract.
 
Sneakers said:
Um so what I said was that the downside to having the good young players is the high stakes financial dire straits you find yourself in... one bad contract and the whole thing blows up. Your point is that it's not bad to have a multitude of good players? Gee that's great but its completely unrelated to the point I'm trying to make... financial prudence. Amazing insight though.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what's your point, then? The 'Thunder Model' is accumulate a mountain of draft picks, draft better than everyone, let them play, and then hope your players are in the conversation for the best at their position or at least best at an important skill (Ibaka, shot-blocking/defense). The 'downside' is that the market basically won't allow them to keep all of their favorite players. Half the teams in the NBA don't have even one of those guys. OKC lost one, but didn't lose him for nothing and in fact got a pretty nice haul in the process .

There is no downside to having 'too many' good players.

One bad contract and you yada? That's precisely the problem OKC didn't have. Perkins is their worst contract and he's a good player. Paying Harden $60/4 if he even just stalls at the player he's been is worthy money, without respect to the cap situation of whatever team. But if you don't want to pay that much for a player, you can parlay high market-value and OKC did exactly that. And probably could've at the end of the year as well.

There is no downside to having 'too many' good players.
 
PKM said:
I think it's a little early to be making definitive comparisons between Lamb and Harden when Lamb hasn't played his first game yet, that counts.
Click to expand...

Not too early to say Lamb is a better shooter. Lamb cashes open jumpers, Harden does not. He has a lot more potential as well.
 
LazyD said:
Not too early to say Lamb is a better shooter. Lamb cashes open jumpers, Harden does not. He has a lot more potential as well.
Click to expand...

Uhh, yes, it is too early to say this. Especially when you consider Lamb's absolutely garbage shot selection he displayed in college.
 
Sneakers said:
Do you think OKC fans are thrilled they traded their 6th man Olympian and took a huge step back in the title race? That's what I thought
Click to expand...

Just read threads on a lot of major Thunder sights. Most of there fans seem to like the trade.
 
JJAS said:
It sounds like Harden was a greedy ****. The thunder offered him $55.5 over 4 years, 4.5 less than what Houston will give him. Not many players ever get the opportunity to play on a championship quality team. Ask Malone and Stockton how much they would pay for that opportunity. Now he's in Houston playing on an abysmal team that will not make the Playoffs. I understand it's 4.5 million dollars, but when you've already got $55.5, why not take the better working conditions unless you don't care?
Click to expand...

Joe Johnson and Shawn Marion say hello.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Sorry, what's your point, then? The 'Thunder Model' is accumulate a mountain of draft picks, draft better than everyone, let them play, and then hope your players are in the conversation for the best at their position or at least best at an important skill (Ibaka, shot-blocking/defense). The 'downside' is that the market basically won't allow them to keep all of their favorite players. Half the teams in the NBA don't have even one of those guys. OKC lost one, but didn't lose him for nothing and in fact got a pretty nice haul in the process .

There is no downside to having 'too many' good players.

One bad contract and you yada? That's precisely the problem OKC didn't have. Perkins is their worst contract and he's a good player. Paying Harden $60/4 if he even just stalls at the player he's been is worthy money, without respect to the cap situation of whatever team. But if you don't want to pay that much for a player, you can parlay high market-value and OKC did exactly that. And probably could've at the end of the year as well.

There is no downside to having 'too many' good players.
Click to expand...

Ugh no **** there's no downside to having good players on the basketball court. But this OKC situation is a parable as to what may happen just in case you're, say, attached to our core four. Say what you want about "market value" but OKC and it's fans would have rather have kept Harden. Are you going to disagree with that? They took a step backwards. Whether or not it was 'market value' there are still numerous intangible things (familiarity, chemistry, off court chemistry) in addition to known-value things (how well Harden plays) lost from a team that just made the finals and wasn't too far off. If things were better managed it would not have come to that, spare me your Perkins love but the guy is obscenely overpaid. Furthermore even if we don't sign bad contracts there is a chance one of our guys gets to greedy and out prices himself from us, and we may have to make a similar move. Hence the Harden trade is a GLIMPSE INTO OUR FUTURE. Christ.
 
I think Harden wanted out because I think he is underrated and sees himself not getting enough minutes on OKC, so I don't think money had so much to do with it.

All along I thought they should've traded Westbrook because despite his great athleticism he is not a good team player or distributor, something in which Harden excels. I don't know anything about Lamb so I can't comment about him and KMart is very one-dimensional and his injuries have caused his skills to decline.
 
LazyD said:
Not too early to say Lamb is a better shooter. Lamb cashes open jumpers, Harden does not. He has a lot more potential as well.
Click to expand...

I almost feel sorry for ya..

Harden, against NBA defenses last year .. 49% FG, 39% from 3, 85% FT.
Lamb, aginst college defenses last year .. 47% FG, 33% from 3, 81% FT.

I've made no decisions, but glad to see you're so confident .. based on???
 
OKC simply decided that Harden wasn't worth near-max money. The deal sets them back until Lamb fills the void (if he ever does). Kevin Martin is pretty one-dimensional. If a few of our young players decide they want more money than our FO wants to pay, or if any of them want to play in a bigger market, or be "the man" on another team, the Jazz will have to make a move. Every team faces this. We're in that situation with Millsap right now, fwiw. That's why there's always got to be a back-up plan for any/every player who's becoming a FA.
 
I'm guessing OKC decided they are strong enough on the perimeter and want to invest their pennies on a quality big. They have very little inside game, and they see what's going on with LA and us. Cole Aldrich didn't pan out, so they shipped him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top