James Harden has added the Blazers to his list

I think the gap between CJ and Harden is really significant but obviously not as massive as the gap between Rivers and Dame. CJ is about 2/3 a James Harden but Rivers is less than half a Dame Lillard. Not that the list is all that great but CJ is 27th on the ESPN top 100 and Austin Rivers isn't as in isn't ranked which is about right. So when you say someone's take is laughable maybe don't make a more ridiculous hyperbole in response.

 

The fan delusion is astounding.

 

This is just one example, but if you look at winshares for CJ and Harden last year (4.1 vs 13.1), Harden would win you more games in one season than CJ would in three.

 

Let's face it, Dame would not be on board with Harden deal. But I think if you really want to contend you have to deal with personalities and egos. Look at Brooklyn. Two difficult superstars.

 

Just statistics... calling the gap between Rivers and Dame the same as the gap between CJ and Harden equal is delusional. I'm a "CJ hater" and I know that much. CJ is a ball hog with a ton of ways to score that does distribute the ball on the rare occasion that Dame is out and has his own team... and CJ is terrible defensively. Harden is the most well rounded scorer in the league, who is a very very good ball distributor but a known ball hog too and happens to be a below average defender. So that comparison makes a lot more sense than Austin fucking Rivers and Dame. Also I don't think CJ is the 27th best player in the league I'd put him a lot further back than that... so I guess my delusion is less extreme than the national media's.

 

Just watching one Nets game it sure looks like they are a very good team. If healthy they’ll win the East. Not sure they have any desire whatsoever to completely change their team around with a guy like Harden. I don’t think the Nets are a landing spot for him

 

statistics say Harden is an above average defender while CJ is below.

and I don’t know when this whole “harden is a ball hog” narrative started but it was probably in his OKC days, or early in his rocket career, because he’s been one of the best playmakers in the league for awhile now.

 

Yeah, I'm a bit conflicted on that one. LaVert would be painful to give up and giving up your backup 5 in Allen when you don't have anybody else that fills that role might be tough too. That being said, trading LaVert likely means bringing Shamet off the bench and if they're trading that many players they'll probably be picking up some and one of them would likely be a backup center.

Kyrie, Harden, Harris, Durant, Jordan with a bench that still has Shamet, Green and could include guys that are still available like John Henson and even a JR Smith. At that point you wouldn't be looking at just winning the East but most likely unseating the Lakers. Then you get the opportunity to add to that team in the off season with the MLE and ring chasers. You could be looking at a dynasty.

It's a really hard decision because I like LaVert, Dinwiddie and Allen a lot and even without Harden who's to say that this team won't be a dynasty anyway.

 

Yeah maybe the ball hog comment was just going along with a dubious accepted narrative. However at the very best Harden is an average defender. He gets some steals but he's also a liability far too often... I don't think he's better than Dame on that end and I wouldn't put Dame as better than average.

 

One of the impressive parts of these Nets is their depth. And depth is always huge but even more so when you have KD and Kyrie coming off injuries and getting up there (in NBA terms). Adding Harden makes them totally impossible to stop offensively but the cost of depth might be a bad move assuming they have some normal injuries to their big 3.

 

IMO Harden and Dame could work.
I can also see Kyrie and Harden working or Harden and KD working. But all three? Is Kyrie willing to be "Bosh" and take a back seat to the other 2? Right now Brooklyn has a good thing going, I would not mess with it.

 

It’s not just steals. He’s one of the toughest guards to post up, and teams go at him in volume. It’s almost as if they bought that no defense narrative as well and just stupidly attack him. But he just gets better defensively every season. He’s not perfect, he struggles closing out, but he’s no longer a liability on that end.

 

my guess is the rockets couldn’t find a match among the teams on Hardens original list, so he expanded it. Wasn’t reported until yesterday, but I think the timeline is closer to a week ago when Woj mentioned other teams being more willing to get involved. I think it’s all connected. I don’t think Harden included Portland just randomly.

 

Westbrook was a terrible contract. So they took a terrible contract back. Harden isn't a terrible contract, because he's actually a great player unlike Westbrook. The Westbrook trade doesn't tell us anything in regards to a Harden trade.

 

Just because a package might make sense for one team doesn’t mean it would make sense for the other. The only way Olshey would/should consider trading Nurk is if he got another center from someone else in a separate deal. That isn’t very realistic, and if Houston isn’t willing to do a deal without getting him, then a deal wouldn’t/shouldn’t be made. We rely too much on our center to just hand the keys over to no defense Kanter or younger, less proven guys like Zach/Giles who aren’t physical enough to hang with the more traditional bigs.

 

Being a ball hog and a great play-maker are not mutually exclusive. Every play runs through Harden, but he's also a great drive-and-kick guy. He's been difficult for other PG's to coexist with, and Chris Paul supposedly hated that Harden would sit out offensive sets if he wasn't involved.

If a deal for Harden can be made, you have to do it. But, I'd say it's 50/50 whether it's a great pairing with Dame or a total implosion.

 

the Paul/harden pairing was a game away from knocking out a prime warriors team. Pauls usage rate that season was comparable to Dames usage rate in 2014-15, arguably our best team in the last decade.

 

Mostly. But, if you've followed the NBA in the past few decades you would know that small market teams usually don't win. When they do, the coaching and front office is found to be integral.

The Blazers are a small market team.

 

Lol