I think Harden can play the point just like Ginobili can, in stretches off the bench, but you don't want him as a full time PG.
We have to have Harden
- Thread starter BluesRocker
- Start date
I think Harden can play the point just like Ginobili can, in stretches off the bench, but you don't want him as a full time PG.
GVC
Well-Known Member
The Thunder don't have "options". They run a few high screens to create space for one of their three scorers (they were third in the league in scoring and last in the league in assists this year). Dude had the second highest TS% in the league this year creating for himself. He also happens to be the only one of the three who can create for others.
Further, a max contract isn't what it used to be. Paying Harden 15mil per over 4 years is a no brainer.
BluesRocker
Banned
Ya, when you have Parker you dont.
Im just saying if Harden is your best option at point then you play him there. If you are suffering at point like we are, itbwould be stupid not to play him there, and get the offense going. I dont really see the use in a point guard who cant play poiny guard. Like Harris. I think we would have been better offf with Hayward running point this year. He guards points better than Harris, and distributes better.
And the way things look right now, we dont have a shot at anyone who can play point better than Harden.
Also I dont think you have to be so traditional either. Why not just run two sg's at once, if they can do what a point could do and more.
The lakers went untraditional with Magic and won 5 rings because of it.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
I think Thunder HAVE to keep a guy like Harden because well, look at some of the things he can do on the court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jADXl8kBbO4
I think its a nobrainer to keep a guy like Ibaka too because well, he can do some things on the courts too.
A core of Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka is pretty danged good if you ask me. Then just add some vet FA's (Jamario Moon comes to mind) and get some low post scoring (Tony Battie is expiring and could be had for cheap.) Heck, I'd even throw money at a guy like Deron Williams if I was OKC and slide Westbrook to the 2, his more natural position. I know I know, small market, Dwill wont sign, blah blah blah. But tell that small market BS to the boys in San Antonio.
Bottom line is, sometimes you gotta play with the hand you got dealt to you even when all the chips are out there and they start to stack up. The Thunder HAVE to keep there guys. Even if you have to overpay a guy like Harden and give him the max, you do it. If that means amnestying a guy like Thabo Sefalosha to open up cap space, so be it. You have to do what you have to do and it isnt always greener pastures whaen you let go of your good players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jADXl8kBbO4
I think its a nobrainer to keep a guy like Ibaka too because well, he can do some things on the courts too.
A core of Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka is pretty danged good if you ask me. Then just add some vet FA's (Jamario Moon comes to mind) and get some low post scoring (Tony Battie is expiring and could be had for cheap.) Heck, I'd even throw money at a guy like Deron Williams if I was OKC and slide Westbrook to the 2, his more natural position. I know I know, small market, Dwill wont sign, blah blah blah. But tell that small market BS to the boys in San Antonio.
Bottom line is, sometimes you gotta play with the hand you got dealt to you even when all the chips are out there and they start to stack up. The Thunder HAVE to keep there guys. Even if you have to overpay a guy like Harden and give him the max, you do it. If that means amnestying a guy like Thabo Sefalosha to open up cap space, so be it. You have to do what you have to do and it isnt always greener pastures whaen you let go of your good players.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
Eh, I'm an all in type of guy.
We saw it with our own Jazz how fast your championship window can close.
I understand financial prudence and being salary cautious, but at the end of the day, isnt it a game? isnt it about putting the best 5 guys out on the court who are gonna give you those blood, sweat and tears to hopefully win a championship title? If its not about that, then what are you even doing?
btw, I can certainly see the conservative argument and I'm not trying to argue with you, just getting my point across.
Ibaka is good, but he has to be paired with someone better around the rim than Perkins. Ibaka, for all his athletic and dunking ability, isn't a good finisher and has a bad offensive feel.
I think they should consider a finishing lineup of
Westbrook
Sefalosha (to guard Ginobili)
Harden
Durant
Ibaka
NAOS
Well-Known Member
It should be pointed out (no pun intended): this magnificent version of the Spurs has only one true PG (and, it's debatable whether Parker fits that description, too).
If you can have one guy like Nash (and an understudy in Marshall or Lillard), and then play guys like Harden and Burks at the 1 for a handful of minutes, then you've absolutely got that spot on the floor covered.
There are too many people on this board who are stuck on the idea of pure PG. Good to have? Yes. Important to carry three PGs? Absolutely not. Dangerous to run your offense as if it depended on a pure PG when there isn't one out there? ****ing miserably yes
Play Burks.
EDIT: this ideology also clears up the so-called "logjam" we have at the 2.
Also, I'm concerned someone named Tyrone Corbin is also stuck on the pure PG model.
If you can have one guy like Nash (and an understudy in Marshall or Lillard), and then play guys like Harden and Burks at the 1 for a handful of minutes, then you've absolutely got that spot on the floor covered.
There are too many people on this board who are stuck on the idea of pure PG. Good to have? Yes. Important to carry three PGs? Absolutely not. Dangerous to run your offense as if it depended on a pure PG when there isn't one out there? ****ing miserably yes
Play Burks.
EDIT: this ideology also clears up the so-called "logjam" we have at the 2.
Also, I'm concerned someone named Tyrone Corbin is also stuck on the pure PG model.
The point in playing a guy like Harris is that he can push the ball and use his speed as a weapon. Harden is fast, but not as fast as Harris. Also, you ideally do not want Harden running through the huge amount of screens while trying to guard lightning fast PG's. It's the hardest position to defend, and it takes a lot of energy out of players who aren't really suited to guarding that position.
Even if we signed Harden, I would probably keep him on the bench and use him just like he is being used for the Thunder and like Ginobili was used by the Spurs. I find it hard to believe Harden will get more efficient than he is by starting, so I like the idea of him being an All-Star caliber off the bench.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Uh, my argument is simply a financial one. How the hell are they going to have the money to sign Williams and Durant to max deals, Westbrook and Harden to near max deals if not max, and Ibaka to damn near the same. That's probably around 75M-80M right there for five guys.
I think Ibaka will be around 10 million (is that near max?), that seems to be the going price for athletically dominant defensive big men who are a lost cause on offense.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I disagree. Look at what Jordan got from the Clips and to me, Ibaka may have a better ceiling given his frame and age. That said, even if he does get just 10M, the range is still 75-80M. You're basically saying sign 4 max guys and Ibaka.
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
So your a financial guy? I see. Well with all due respect, this is a BASKETBALL message board. If you want to simply talk business go join a forum on forbes.com
Even if you are in it for the money, dont you think a team that actually wins will rake in more revinues? So lets say OKC plays it safe and doesnt pay there guys, will Oklahoma City Joe and his wife still come to games and fork out $3 for a pizza and upwards of $4 for some cans of beer? Only time will tell but I think either way you are missing the forest for the trees.
The NBA is a players league. Always has been, always will be. If your in the business to just make money, start up anew facebook or maybe go on Shark Tank with some new inventions or something. THATS the way to make money, but to me the NBA is still about winning ball games (even with all of the flopping) and last time I checked its the 5 guys on the court making buckets who win you games, not the guys in suits sipping their Smirnoff vodkas from there leather luxury box seats.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
For the 13/14 year...
Durant--18.77
Williams--19 (37.77)
Harden--13 (50.77)
Westbrook--13 (63.77)
Ibaka--10 (73.77)
And that's on the low end for the last three imo.
Durant--18.77
Williams--19 (37.77)
Harden--13 (50.77)
Westbrook--13 (63.77)
Ibaka--10 (73.77)
And that's on the low end for the last three imo.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
BluesRocker, you're so damn cute.
This ain't Forbes, for sure, but it's not only about revenues and expense/profit and loss. The formulas are incredibly more complex than money-in-money-out. Trying to sign these 5 guys at ~$70MM, plus the rest of the roster, put you deep into the LT and will make the Thunder anything but profitable, I don't care how many hot dogs and wine coolers you sell.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
To me this is the same thing as all those people yesterday saying you have to throw this and that many quarters in the air and if so and so quarters land on heads, than the Jazz will get the 8th pick. When in reality, 27% is 27% and its all relative.
What I'm trying to say is you can argue semantics all day long but when it comes right down to it, two teams are gonna walk out on that court and when it comes game time, if I'm the Thunder, I want the best 5 guys on my squad. Period.