I dunno its just insane to me to think that any of you would do any differently in his shoes. Many on this board, but especially the two I'm currently arguing with come off as thinking quite highly of themselves, somewhat arrogant, and wouldn't back down at every possible concession when trying to come to an agreement like Harden was (and I would say I am the same way). So Harden has to give up money, status as a #1 guy, and a starting role while OKC, Durant, and Westbrook give up nothing? Just on principle it makes no sense that Harden has to be the biggest loser. And I can't speak to your opinion but it seems like most of you PDX fans think Harden is better than Westbrook. If Harden is of the same mind, why the hell does he have to give up everything and everyone else gets everything they wanted? Who's not the team player here? Westbrook and Durant couldn't take 2-3 million less per year so that they could all have equal salaries? It wasn't like everyone didn't see the Westbrook/Harden contract debacles coming.
According the Houston commentators (wolves @ hou), they're saying the team talked to Asik and assured him that they want him on the team. Asik and McKale said to have talked it out. Sounded like he just needed a tissue and a pat on the back to tell him he is good enough, and smart enough, and dog gone it, people like him. lol
When they are making 15 mil a year, you'd think taking 2 or 3 mil off is a no-brainer. But I am under the belief that the player has very little say in monetary, that it's all agents and the greed. Yes, fair market value, etc. etc. That said, Harden is in the best place possible for him.
Lillard has proven much less than any of them and you all would throw the kitchen sink at him TODAY to keep him if he demanded it.
What if OKC traded Westbrook instead of Harden for a player like Conley, Jr. Or a group of solid players? Harden plays SG, Durant plays Sf and you have a tough defender in Conley Jr. And probably picks or youth. Whatever the case, it was a very bad deal. You could have all three in the starting line-up. Westbrook at PG, Harden at 2 and Durant at 3. You could probably trade for asik even and have a solid defensive center to boot
Harden wouldn't be a loser. He'd be on a perennial winner. I haven't said a thing about what I would or would not do. But both OKC and Harden passed on being a champion. That much is true. And if Harden wanted a max offer, he could've played better in the Finals.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm actually on your side that Houston is a great spot for him. But if people are using the argument of clutchness, Harden hasn't proved it either. But he's a damn good person to have on that team. As Lillard is here.
And OKC should've given Harden the max. They were both wrong. Neither OKC or Harden cared about winning. And yes, I want Lillard to get the max.
So what would you do? And why do you expect Harden to do something different? Why is Harden expected to take less money than hes worth when everyone else gets EVERYTHING they want? And IIRC he would have had to play for like 10-12 mil/year? Thats a pretty healthy paycut from max. Meanwhile Durant and Westbrook refused to give up anything at all.
If OKC should have given him the max, then aren't they wrong? Harden would have stayed and continued to come off the bench if they paid him what he's worth. How can OKC be wrong to not give him max and Harden be wrong to leave for the max?
Dude. You don't read very well. How many times must I say it?? They were BOTH wrong. Both sides put money ahead of winning. Now if you can't understand what I'm saying, I give up on you.
Are people really arguing whether Harden is a max player or not? He just is. He is a star. He gets star calls.
If I advised OKC, I would've told them to give him the max. If I advised Harden, I would've told him to take less money. I would've told them to put winning first. They were both given the chance to act like a winner and they chose money instead.
