James Harden to Brooklyn

Lazy vs Crazy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
6,410
This trade seems bad for everyone except maybe the Cavs?
Assuming everything falls right for the next in the next couple years for the Nets.... no Durant injuries, Harden in shape, Kyrie motivated, on court chemistry gets figured out....how good can a team like that get?

Of course they have the potential to be historically good at scoring and individual playmaking. But only Durant is a good defender and they dont have much rebounding or depth. Can that offense make up for everything else?

Will be fascinating to watch, as other "Big 3s" have typically had more versatility than this. I think the skill redundancy is going to be problem for them winning a title, this isn't baseball.
Curry is better than Kyrie but Harden is better than Klay is the way I look at it. I’ll take Green over Jordan of course so I don’t see this team coming close to what the Warriors were doing.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Maybe I'm wrong but, due to the point about being unable to predict very far in the NBA future as @Cellar-Door describes, I highly doubt that NBA GMs spend much if any time considering where picks are going to end up. For example, I don't think when Danny made the KG/Pierce trade he was specifically thinking "damn, some of these picks are definitely going to be really high in the future." I think he was just trying to acquire as many assets as possible with the hope that some would pan out, as they did.

Similarly, I don't think the Rockets spent much time worrying about where the Nets picks will eventually end up - both because it's so hard to predict beyond a few years in the NBA and because they really didn't have any other option. It's not like the Pistons were offering a boatload of picks for Harden - all of the teams in on Harden are current contenders, so all of their picks are likely to have about the same future value (and I'd argue the likelihood that the Nets end up in the bottom 10 of the league over the next few years is much higher than the likelihood of the Celtics or Philly ending up there, if only because, as others have pointed out, there is a not insignificant chance that in 2-3 years not one of the Nets current "Big 3" will still be on the team).
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,163
San Francisco
Except as people have repeatedly pointed out.... that's not what they got.

You keep taking this wild assumption on where the Rockets and Nets will be and treating it as gospel.

We have no idea where either team will be more than 2 years down the road.

I mean, shit, the Warriors went from one of the best teams of all time to the #2 pick in the draft in 2 years, the Raptors went from a title contender to maybe not making the playoffs this year, the Cavs recently went from a 50+ win team to an under 20 win team.

You can't accurately project what players will move to new teams, or what players will have injuries in the NBA, and NBA GMs know that, which is why they never assume that a team will be the same 3,4, 5, 6, 7 years out and value the picks accordingly.

Edit- if anything, I can't think of a combination of 3 stars that seems less likely to stick together for 4-5 years than:
1. KD who left a WCF team to join a superteam, then quickly left the superteam because he didn't like that either
2. Harden who is constantly falling out with other stars, often ones he handpicked
3. Kyrie, who is Kyrie.
Adding to this, people systematically underestimate the variability of team quality on a horizon more than 1 season out. Who had the Warriors being in the basement of the league even 2 years ago? Even assuming Durant left?
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Ben Simmons is a fine player, but he's shown functionally zero improvement since coming into the league. He can't shoot, he won't shoot, and his role on offense in close and late situations is functionally non-existent. He's a special defensive player, but is incredibly awkward to build around under the best of circumstances. Oh, and he's owed $177M over the next 5 years. He has such amazing physical gifts that it's tough to let go of the 'upside' around him, but I'm not sure that upside exists at this point, and without it, he's not someone I'd be falling over myself to trade for.

I think what the Rockets got is better than Simmons/Maxey/Thybulle, and it's not especially close.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Except as people have repeatedly pointed out.... that's not what they got.

You keep taking this wild assumption on where the Rockets and Nets will be and treating it as gospel.

We have no idea where either team will be more than 2 years down the road.

I mean, shit, the Warriors went from one of the best teams of all time to the #2 pick in the draft in 2 years
Yes, in two years the Warriors lost two of their stars to injuries, and if Harden and Durant suffer season ending injuries then the trade will work out for Houston. But season ending injuries for superstars aren't the norm or there'd be a ton more variability in the title results. I mean I just might win tomorrow night's $551 million Megamillions, but I can't do my financial planning around that. You need to assume average luck, and with average luck the Nets are a contender and a 55-60 win team for the next few years.

Edit- if anything, I can't think of a combination of 3 stars that seems less likely to stick together for 4-5 years than:
1. KD who left a WCF team to join a superteam, then quickly left the superteam because he didn't like that either
2. Harden who is constantly falling out with other stars, often ones he handpicked
3. Kyrie, who is Kyrie.
As I said a few times now, I suspect that Irving has served his purpose as far as the Nets are concerned. I will be unshocked if/when they move him for roleplayers.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Ben Simmons is a fine player, but he's shown functionally zero improvement since coming into the league. He can't shoot, he won't shoot, and his role on offense in close and late situations is functionally non-existent. He's a special defensive player, but is incredibly awkward to build around under the best of circumstances. Oh, and he's owed $177M over the next 5 years. He has such amazing physical gifts that it's tough to let go of the 'upside' around him, but I'm not sure that upside exists at this point, and without it, he's not someone I'd be falling over myself to trade for.

I think what the Rockets got is better than Simmons/Maxey/Thybulle, and it's not especially close.
Curious to know why? What are the odds that in 8 years of picks/swaps, the Rockets land a player as good as Simmons? Even if he never gets 1% better, he's a 7-9 win share foundational player. Maxey and Thybulle are role players but they both project as valuable top 8-9 rotation guys.

For this trade to surpass the Sixers' reported offer, the Nets need to hit the jackpot twice like Boston did. Certainly reasonable for them to play the upside game here but there is some risk there as well, especially given the flattening of the lotto odds and the unknown of how good future draft classes will be. The Celtics were fortunate that Tatum/Brown were available in successive drafts but what if Brooklyn gets a couple of RJ Barrett/Lonzo Ball's?
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Ben Simmons is a fine player, but he's shown functionally zero improvement since coming into the league. He can't shoot, he won't shoot, and his role on offense in close and late situations is functionally non-existent. He's a special defensive player, but is incredibly awkward to build around under the best of circumstances. Oh, and he's owed $177M over the next 5 years. He has such amazing physical gifts that it's tough to let go of the 'upside' around him, but I'm not sure that upside exists at this point, and without it, he's not someone I'd be falling over myself to trade for.

I think what the Rockets got is better than Simmons/Maxey/Thybulle, and it's not especially close.
I agree, Simmons has such a strange and disappointing flat career arc to this point. He must be on a 10th percentile projection given where he was after year 1.

I brought this up in the 76ers thread, but have there been young highly touted rookies like Simmons that were great as rookies, made no improvements for 3+ years, and then eventually did make the leap everyone expected?

Physically the upside is still likely there, I just wonder if its ever happened this way before (or if his upside is essentially gone).
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Curious to know why? What are the odds that in 8 years of picks/swaps, the Rockets land a player as good as Simmons? Even if he never gets 1% better, he's a 7-9 win share foundational player. Maxey and Thybulle are role players but they both project as valuable top 8-9 rotation guys.

For this trade to surpass the Sixers' reported offer, the Nets need to hit the jackpot twice like Boston did. Certainly reasonable for them to play the upside game here but there is some risk there as well, especially given the flattening of the lotto odds and the unknown of how good future draft classes will be. The Celtics were fortunate that Tatum/Brown were available in successive drafts but what if Brooklyn gets a couple of RJ Barrett/Lonzo Ball's?
In fairness Ball was just poor drafting as the 2017 pool was pretty good (as was 2016 for that matter). But that's always been my point about rebuilding through the draft, it's not enough to just be bad, you have to be bad in the right years. And as the Rockets' only potential useful picks (unless Kyrie manages to Kyrie up the Nets) fall in the '25-'27 range we're talking about players that are, today, 11-13 years old. You can't even really plan around that.

One of the '22 or '23 drafts will be the double draft and therefore likely produce a good prospect for the Rockets. But if it ain't '22 that pool is looking pretty slim with all the requalifications to '21. So Houston's rebuilding plan might end up derailed by average luck in '22.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Maybe I'm wrong but, due to the point about being unable to predict very far in the NBA future as @Cellar-Door describes, I highly doubt that NBA GMs spend much if any time considering where picks are going to end up. For example, I don't think when Danny made the KG/Pierce trade he was specifically thinking "damn, some of these picks are definitely going to be really high in the future." I think he was just trying to acquire as many assets as possible with the hope that some would pan out, as they did.

Similarly, I don't think the Rockets spent much time worrying about where the Nets picks will eventually end up - both because it's so hard to predict beyond a few years in the NBA and because they really didn't have any other option. It's not like the Pistons were offering a boatload of picks for Harden - all of the teams in on Harden are current contenders, so all of their picks are likely to have about the same future value (and I'd argue the likelihood that the Nets end up in the bottom 10 of the league over the next few years is much higher than the likelihood of the Celtics or Philly ending up there, if only because, as others have pointed out, there is a not insignificant chance that in 2-3 years not one of the Nets current "Big 3" will still be on the team).
They absolutely do. That's why they add pick protections to trades, to ensure that the franchise is shielded in case disaster happens. The Nets picks are unprotected, meaning that they have no way of ducking their obligations.

There's a weird disconnect here wherein some folks think that these picks down the line will be late first rounders while some project them to be high lottery. The league changes so friggin' fast that none of us can say either way. You can, though, look at these things through a risk profile and the risk for the Nets is pretty high overall. Definitely higher than the Lakers last year (considering Davis' age) and probably on par with the Clippers George trade. None of their stars are contracted after two years and they're also nearing mid-30s (and two of them have serious injury history). With no assets to improve, where is the upside for them to be a non-lottery team in five years? Maybe if they trade these players in the last year of their deal they can recoup some assets?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Maybe I'm wrong but, due to the point about being unable to predict very far in the NBA future as @Cellar-Door describes, I highly doubt that NBA GMs spend much if any time considering where picks are going to end up. For example, I don't think when Danny made the KG/Pierce trade he was specifically thinking "damn, some of these picks are definitely going to be really high in the future." I think he was just trying to acquire as many assets as possible with the hope that some would pan out, as they did.

Similarly, I don't think the Rockets spent much time worrying about where the Nets picks will eventually end up - both because it's so hard to predict beyond a few years in the NBA and because they really didn't have any other option. It's not like the Pistons were offering a boatload of picks for Harden - all of the teams in on Harden are current contenders, so all of their picks are likely to have about the same future value (and I'd argue the likelihood that the Nets end up in the bottom 10 of the league over the next few years is much higher than the likelihood of the Celtics or Philly ending up there, if only because, as others have pointed out, there is a not insignificant chance that in 2-3 years not one of the Nets current "Big 3" will still be on the team).
I disagree. We have seen Ainge make a similar long-term look ahead with the Memphis pick that finally matured. It would be a dereliction of duty for a GM to not pursue future draft picks that would appear to have the greatest value.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,195
I agree, Simmons has such a strange and disappointing flat career arc to this point. He must be on a 10th percentile projection given where he was after year 1.

I brought this up in the 76ers thread, but have there been young highly touted rookies like Simmons that were great as rookies, made no improvements for 3+ years, and then eventually did make the leap everyone expected?

Physically the upside is still likely there, I just wonder if its ever happened this way before (or if his upside is essentially gone).
Andrew Wiggins (ducks)
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,195
Curious to know why? What are the odds that in 8 years of picks/swaps, the Rockets land a player as good as Simmons? Even if he never gets 1% better, he's a 7-9 win share foundational player. Maxey and Thybulle are role players but they both project as valuable top 8-9 rotation guys.

For this trade to surpass the Sixers' reported offer, the Nets need to hit the jackpot twice like Boston did. Certainly reasonable for them to play the upside game here but there is some risk there as well, especially given the flattening of the lotto odds and the unknown of how good future draft classes will be. The Celtics were fortunate that Tatum/Brown were available in successive drafts but what if Brooklyn gets a couple of RJ Barrett/Lonzo Ball's?
The odds of that are low for any pick, but multiply it times 8 and it looks a lot better.

That said, I agree with where I think you are going—-Simmons (for all his flaws) is likely better than anyone they draft, and quite possibly better than all of them added together. The case for the picks is primarily that you might get Tatum, Brown, Smart, and a couple other shots at rotation guys from them and that is how you turn a franchise around. Odds are, though, you won’t
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
The odds of that are low for any pick, but multiply it times 8 and it looks a lot better.

That said, I agree with where I think you are going—-Simmons (for all his flaws) is likely better than anyone they draft, and quite possibly better than all of them added together. The case for the picks is primarily that you might get Tatum, Brown, Smart, and a couple other shots at rotation guys from them and that is how you turn a franchise around. Odds are, though, you won’t
Yes, that's basically my position. I don't blame a team for swinging for the fence. Controlling an organization's draft for nearly a decade has incredible potential value so the question becomes what is the likelihood that the total value will exceed the reported offer of Simmons, Maxey, Thybulle, and maybe a pick. The first 2 picks in that return (Brooklyn/Milwaukee 2022) are not likely to be any good. If Brooklyn keeps Durant past 2022, the 2023 swap is not likely to have much value either. So, you're really down to 2024, 2026 Brooklyn picks and the 2025/2027 swaps. That's a 4 year window where you need to find a talent that can approach Simmons' current and expected continued top 20 status. They'll be able to find their Maxey's and Thybulle's of the world so it all centers around Simmons.

Simmons/Wood isn't winning you a title but that's a pretty good combo that would complement each other pretty well and they're only 24/25, respectively. I probably would have signed up for that.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,816
Honolulu HI
The LeVert stuff is curious but he's also 26 (2 years younger than Victor) and not really someone you need in a rebuilding process. One would think they'd be able to flip LeVert for better assets than Oladipo but who knows.
That's the big thing with this. I don't understand how Lavert (younger and signed for 2.5 more years at reasonable money) has less trade value than Oladipo (older and gone in 3 months), and since you'd presumably be trading either in a full rebuild (and they seem pretty committed to that) why the heck would you trade the guy with more trade value (Lavert) for the guy with less trade value - when all you really want to is to flip whichever guy you end up with for more picks and/or young players? This is the strangest aspect of what looks like a pretty unimpressive return for Houston. I also find the pick swap for this year troubling. Obviously this is less important, but adding a completely useless "asset" seems like a silly attempt to pad how their return looks when the media first announces the trade (one more acquired asset..lol). After the underwhelming John Wall trade, paint me unimpressed by Houston's new leadership team.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,195
That's the big thing with this. I don't understand how Lavert (younger and signed for 2.5 more years at reasonable money) has less trade value than Oladipo (older and gone in 3 months), and since you'd presumably be trading either in a full rebuild (and they seem pretty committed to that) why the heck would you trade the guy with more trade value (Lavert) for the guy with less trade value - when all you really want to is to flip whichever guy you end up with for more picks and/or young players? This is the strangest aspect of what looks like a pretty unimpressive return for Houston. I also find the pick swap for this year troubling. Obviously this is less important, but adding a completely useless "asset" seems like a silly attempt to pad how their return looks when the media first announces the trade (one more acquired asset..lol). After the underwhelming John Wall trade, paint me unimpressed by Houston's new leadership team.
In Oladipo's case, I think they liked the player more...I happen to agree with you.

They are massively winning the Wall trade at the moment, seems to me....Wall has outplayed Westbrook thus far; Wall has proven he is more or less healthy, he is younger and they got a pick!
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
That's the big thing with this. I don't understand how Lavert (younger and signed for 2.5 more years at reasonable money) has less trade value than Oladipo (older and gone in 3 months), and since you'd presumably be trading either in a full rebuild (and they seem pretty committed to that) why the heck would you trade the guy with more trade value (Lavert) for the guy with less trade value - when all you really want to is to flip whichever guy you end up with for more picks and/or young players? This is the strangest aspect of what looks like a pretty unimpressive return for Houston. I also find the pick swap for this year troubling. Obviously this is less important, but adding a completely useless "asset" seems like a silly attempt to pad how their return looks when the media first announces the trade (one more acquired asset..lol). After the underwhelming John Wall trade, paint me unimpressed by Houston's new leadership team.
The playoffs are a ten team affair this year, so Houston is gambling that they can finish in one of the two wildcard spots and potentially make the full postseason pushing the pick they’re surrendering to Oklahoma City to #15-#17, which no one cares about. Trading LaVert for actual draft capital would have been better for their long-term health. But lots of management teams spend too much time worrying about the optics.

LaVert likely had little long term interest from Houston as they would seem to be betting the house on a full tear down next summer and they didn’t need any extra victories in their quest for top four picks. I will also be unshocked if Wall gets moved next summer if he continues to play well/be healthy.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Andrew Wiggins (ducks)
Wiggins has had a weird pretty flat career arc too but he has never had a season remotely as good as Simmons.

Simmons was so good year 1 and just hasn’t gotten any better at all. Progression isn’t always linear, but it usually happens to some degree by year 4.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Curious to know why? What are the odds that in 8 years of picks/swaps, the Rockets land a player as good as Simmons?
Players as good as Ben Simmons become available as free agents with regularity if you're willing to pay them $35M/year. If Ben Simmons doesn't improve, then he has functionally zero asset value on his current contract. Gordon Hayward was available this year. Ricky Rubio has been available time and time again. These guys become available and are valuable, but don't move the needle into making anyone a contender. If I'm the Rockets, Simmons is close to worthless to me on his current deal without the hope of improvement. There's just a lot of opportunity cost associated with paying someone $35M if they're not going to be an impact player.

Put another way, the Rockets got themselves a better player in Oladipo with this deal, plus the 8 first round picks. And Oladipo won't cost $35M to keep.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Players as good as Ben Simmons become available as free agents with regularity if you're willing to pay them $35M/year. If Ben Simmons doesn't improve, then he has functionally zero asset value on his current contract. Gordon Hayward was available this year. Ricky Rubio has been available time and time again. These guys become available and are valuable, but don't move the needle into making anyone a contender. If I'm the Rockets, Simmons is close to worthless to me on his current deal without the hope of improvement. There's just a lot of opportunity cost associated with paying someone $35M if they're not going to be an impact player.

Put another way, the Rockets got themselves a better player in Oladipo with this deal, plus the 8 first round picks. And Oladipo won't cost $35M to keep.
Simmons has his obvious warts but saying Oladipo is a better player is a bridge too far for me.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,816
Honolulu HI
The playoffs are a ten team affair this year, so Houston is gambling that they can finish in one of the two wildcard spots and potentially make the full postseason pushing the pick they’re surrendering to Oklahoma City to #15-#17, which no one cares about. Trading LaVert for actual draft capital would have been better for their long-term health. But lots of management teams spend too much time worrying about the optics.
LaVert likely had little long term interest from Houston as they would seem to be betting the house on a full tear down next summer and they didn’t need any extra victories in their quest for top four picks. I will also be unshocked if Wall gets moved next summer if he continues to play well/be healthy.
Interesting. Hadn't realized they were planning on competing this year. Even in that case couldn't they have been as competitive with Lavert - and then traded him at the end of the season for a good return? Even if they wouldn't have been as good with Lavert, aren't they only able to keep the pick if it's in the top 3? In that case all that would really matter with that pick is if they could somehow bottom out this season. I mean, whether the pick is the number 5 pick or the number 15 who really cares? Houston needs to be thinking about it's long-term future not trying to achieve a playoff spot so the pick they are forced to give away isn't too much of an asset. I mean, seriously, their GM's assignment is to advance the future of the franchise, not to hurt OKC's future.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,195
Simmons has his obvious warts but saying Oladipo is a better player is a bridge too far for me.
He's not, even the healthy version. I don't think he's worth more on his contract either (and pretty clearly, neither do NBA teams based on all the trade reports).

The one thing that is not hyperbolic there is that Simmons at $35 mil does need to produce at an elite level. I understand if one's only lens is RPM he is not doing that, but I tend to think he's a tough guy to value and also in a siutation which is pretty tough to assess.

One mistake I see a bunch around salary and value discussion in the NBA is that people forget you can't take the money into the next year and the cap is very constrained. So, being more payroll-efficient in any given year through having inferior players is not usually better. The only exception is if you are seeking to create a max or near-max slot, really....which Philly is not. Otherwise, guys at the right (higher) end of the production curve even coming close to their value is a better investment than a cheaper guy outperforming his deal but generating less overall productivity. Which is another way of saying that Oladipo is very likely not only a worse player, but a worse investment, than Simmons even given the significant salary difference. One could, as a trade asset, argue that there are teams thinking about a max deal for whom Simmons' salary is more of an issue---Houston is not immediately that team, and I think the argument still fails given the performance gap.
 
Last edited:

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Simmons has his obvious warts but saying Oladipo is a better player is a bridge too far for me.
Yeah - this is why I don't think the Philly offer was especially credible relative to what they got from Brooklyn. I don't even like Oladipo all that much, but it's just very hard to build a contending team around Simmons, given the issues he causes your offense.

Obviously reasonable minds can differ on Simmons, but I'm guessing a very 'meh' opinion on Simmons is why Houston went this route. They remain very analytics driven. I'd venture that's also why Philly was willing to put Simmons on the table fwiw.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,195
Morey certainly understood the importance of stars, also known as guys at the far right of the productiction curve regardless of contract. That's why he took shots on guys like Paul, Westbrook, Howard, etc. So I don't think it is likely his successor and protege fails to recognize that or overfixated on contract size.

What I do think is true is that they didn't believe Simmons was good enough to make them a contender right away, and if he is not then they are better off seeking assets in future years because they are in for a rebuild. I really doubt they assessed that Oladipo is a better asset than Simmons---I think they decided that the picks fit their timeline a lot better. That also explains preferring Oladipo over LeVert, because either Oladipo will prove this year he's back to borderline all-nba level or become cap space whereas LeVert will be a good (but not difference making) player for the next few years. Again, I don't agree with that part of the assessment but I understand why you might do so.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,018
Imaginationland
Simmons is more valuable than Oladipo and probably a better player, but the gap isn't really all that big. If you start from the premise that neither guy is good enough to be the best player on a championship team, it starts coming down to fit. Healthy Oladipo would be a good fit on nearly every team in the league (except for those few situations in which both guards are already all stars). He's still just 28, and he was better in 2018 (an efficient 25/5/4, led the league in steals, 1st team all defense and 3rd team all nba) than Simmons has ever been. Simmons is just much harder to peg, and though he's 4 years younger, it's not clear he has more upside than Oladipo. Oladipo's health and attitude are major factors here, but Simmons isn't exactly a paragon of health either.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,816
Honolulu HI
Simmons is more valuable than Oladipo and probably a better player, but the gap isn't really all that big. If you start from the premise that neither guy is good enough to be the best player on a championship team, it starts coming down to fit. Healthy Oladipo would be a good fit on nearly every team in the league (except for those few situations in which both guards are already all stars). He's still just 28, and he was better in 2018 (an efficient 25/5/4, led the league in steals, 1st team all defense and 3rd team all nba) than Simmons has ever been. Simmons is just much harder to peg, and though he's 4 years younger, it's not clear he has more upside than Oladipo. Oladipo's health and attitude are major factors here, but Simmons isn't exactly a paragon of health either.
I'm a bit confused by this debate. Does anyone see Oladipo signing long-term in Houston? Does Houston even want that? If we are comparing 3 months of a 28-year old Oladipo to 4 years of a 24 year old Simmons the better option is pretty obvious. Even if Houston does want to resign Oladipo, it would seem likely that Oladipo wouldn't be interested. Further, even if he is interested, if Houston is in rebuild mode wouldn't they prefer to rebuild around a 24 year old?
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
I think the overall challenge with Simmons is that he makes a lot of money, and he's a very unique player. Meaning, he's not like Tatum or even Jaylen Brown where basically he's going to be an elite player on any team he's dropped into. You basically need to design a team around him to take advantage of his considerable skills, and the question is, is it worth it in the end?
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I'm a bit confused by this debate. Does anyone see Oladipo signing long-term in Houston? Does Houston even want that? If we are comparing 3 months of a 28-year old Oladipo to 4 years of a 24 year old Simmons the better option is pretty obvious. Even if Houston does want to resign Oladipo, it would seem likely that Oladipo wouldn't be interested. Further, even if he is interested, if Houston is in rebuild mode wouldn't they prefer to rebuild around a 24 year old?
If Houston wants to pay Oladipo $35M/year, I presume he'd be very interested.

Your last sentence is correct, but the point I'm trying to articulate is that I don't think Simmons is a very good 24 year old to build around. He's a good, but not great player, and has shown zero signs of growth. Unless you think you can unlock some hidden potential in Simmons, I'd usually rather have the $35M in cap space.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
"Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge discussed his team’s involvement publicly after the deal went down, indicating that the two teams had not had recent talks. Still, sources say the Rockets saw the Celtics as part of their process until the end and that there were multiple configurations of a deal still possible on that front. As The Athletic reported on Dec. 24, Boston and Portland had been late additions to Harden’s list."

https://theathletic.com/2329532/?source=twitterhq
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
I wish Ainge got himself in this trade. Not for Harden (although I would have been on board) but for Allen. Seems like a very small price to pay. Exum is garbage, and the pick they sent is MIL 2022.

Would have gladly given up a first for the restricted rights to Allen. Prince is nothing special, but he would have been nice wing depth.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,000
I wish Ainge got himself in this trade. Not for Harden (although I would have been on board) but for Allen. Seems like a very small price to pay. Exum is garbage, and the pick they sent is MIL 2022.

Would have gladly given up a first for the restricted rights to Allen. Prince is nothing special, but he would have been nice wing depth.
I just think the Celtics are not going to value a center highly enough to do that deal, and I don't think they're wrong.

I'm becoming a bit of a Semi truther, but the real need is on the wing, and filling salary slots has real opportunity cost with the looming payroll.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
I just think the Celtics are not going to value a center highly enough to do that deal, and I don't think they're wrong.

I'm becoming a bit of a Semi truther, but the real need is on the wing, and filling salary slots has real opportunity cost with the looming payroll.
Is the 25-30 pick in the 2022 draft all that high of value? I woudl argue that Thompson at 2 years 19 million is worse value than that late of a pick and Allen at 1 year 10 million and his restricted rights
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,379
Fat James Harden's two games with the Nets:

32 points, 12 rebounds, 14 assists (6 TO) - Nets score 122 points in a win
34 points, 6 rebounds, 12 assists (9 TO) - Nets score 125 points in a win
 

mikeot

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2006
8,147
FWIW Chris Webber on last night's TNT broadcast of Nets-Bucks says he believes Steve Nash will be a great fit to coach Harden because their games were/are so similar, showing a clip of Nash coaching him up prior to game time.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,379
So..... can Kyrie live with being a clear third wheel on this team? I mean, Durant and Harden are both far superior offensive players, and in the case of Harden, he's ball-dominant. So where does that leave Kyrie?

It's one thing to be a Klay Thompson type - a great great scorer who doesn't need the ball and is content to be the #3 guy. It's another to believe in your heart of hearts that you're THE alpha on ANY team you're a part of, to be relegated to the #3 guy role. If he ever decided to be content with that, he could be phenomenal in that situation. But....can he live with it?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
So..... can Kyrie live with being a clear third wheel on this team? I mean, Durant and Harden are both far superior offensive players, and in the case of Harden, he's ball-dominant. So where does that leave Kyrie?

It's one thing to be a Klay Thompson type - a great great scorer who doesn't need the ball and is content to be the #3 guy. It's another to believe in your heart of hearts that you're THE alpha on ANY team you're a part of, to be relegated to the #3 guy role. If he ever decided to be content with that, he could be phenomenal in that situation. But....can he live with it?
Only a matter of time before he starts pouting. These last 2 games have been great. Harden is still trying to do too much, as the turnovers show, but the 2-man game of Durant/Harden is damn near unstoppable. They really don't need Kyrie except in the event of an injury/COVID issue with Durant or Harden. Harris is 9-16 from 3pt land in the 2 games with Harden. He's basically serving in the exact role that we hope Nesmith ultimately gets to and he's going to murder teams who overcommit to Durant/Harden. Once Kyrie comes back, I'm expecting the flow of that offense to be negatively impacted. If Harden/Durant get too many touches, he'll start forcing shots in an attempted alpha move. Or, he'll pout like 2006-2007 Kobe. The possibilities are endless and most of them won't be good for Brooklyn.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,379
Only a matter of time before he starts pouting. These last 2 games have been great. Harden is still trying to do too much, as the turnovers show, but the 2-man game of Durant/Harden is damn near unstoppable. They really don't need Kyrie except in the event of an injury/COVID issue with Durant or Harden. Harris is 9-16 from 3pt land in the 2 games with Harden. He's basically serving in the exact role that we hope Nesmith ultimately gets to and he's going to murder teams who overcommit to Durant/Harden. Once Kyrie comes back, I'm expecting the flow of that offense to be negatively impacted. If Harden/Durant get too many touches, he'll start forcing shots in an attempted alpha move. Or, he'll pout like 2006-2007 Kobe. The possibilities are endless and most of them won't be good for Brooklyn.
But will be a great deal of fun for US. :)
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,427
So..... can Kyrie live with being a clear third wheel on this team? I mean, Durant and Harden are both far superior offensive players, and in the case of Harden, he's ball-dominant. So where does that leave Kyrie?

It's one thing to be a Klay Thompson type - a great great scorer who doesn't need the ball and is content to be the #3 guy. It's another to believe in your heart of hearts that you're THE alpha on ANY team you're a part of, to be relegated to the #3 guy role. If he ever decided to be content with that, he could be phenomenal in that situation. But....can he live with it?
Its gonna be awesome when hes posting up 5 times a game.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
So..... can Kyrie live with being a clear third wheel on this team? I mean, Durant and Harden are both far superior offensive players, and in the case of Harden, he's ball-dominant. So where does that leave Kyrie?

It's one thing to be a Klay Thompson type - a great great scorer who doesn't need the ball and is content to be the #3 guy. It's another to believe in your heart of hearts that you're THE alpha on ANY team you're a part of, to be relegated to the #3 guy role. If he ever decided to be content with that, he could be phenomenal in that situation. But....can he live with it?

From a pure basketball standpoint, trading Kyrie for a couple of above average role-players would probably be better for the Nets.

Durant/Harden is plenty of offense and playmaking. Kyrie's skillset redundancy doesn't really make him an ideal #3 with those 2, there is going to be some talent wasted there no matter what. If he buys in and plays hard he still will help them, but that's a big if.

I'm not really sure if any team would trade for Kyrie right now given his likelihood to pout or quit in a less than perfect situation, so it may be a moot point anyway.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
From a pure basketball standpoint, trading Kyrie for a couple of above average role-players would probably be better for the Nets.

Durant/Harden is plenty of offense and playmaking. Kyrie's skillset redundancy doesn't really make him an ideal #3 with those 2, there is going to be some talent wasted there no matter what. If he buys in and plays hard he still will help them, but that's a big if.

I'm not really sure if any team would trade for Kyrie right now given his likelihood to pout or quit in a less than perfect situation, so it may be a moot point anyway.
I think nighthob is probably right that the Knicks are probably the only other realistic option for the Nets to trade Kyrie and clearly Brooklyn isn't trading him to the Knicks for several reasons.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,379
From a pure basketball standpoint, trading Kyrie for a couple of above average role-players would probably be better for the Nets.

Durant/Harden is plenty of offense and playmaking. Kyrie's skillset redundancy doesn't really make him an ideal #3 with those 2, there is going to be some talent wasted there no matter what. If he buys in and plays hard he still will help them, but that's a big if.

I'm not really sure if any team would trade for Kyrie right now given his likelihood to pout or quit in a less than perfect situation, so it may be a moot point anyway.
Yeah, I feel like three absolute studs is probably going to end up being a bit of a waste of resources. You will have something underutilized in that situation. So two superstars, one other maybe all-star level player, and a bunch of good role players is probably the best mix. Three alpha superstars is probably going to leave something on the table.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
It’s not just the 3 superstar problem, it’s that they all get lot of their value from individual playmaking.

If one of those superstars got a huge chunk of their value from being an elite defender or rebounder, things would different.

Prime KG Or AD would obviously not be an issue. But having Harden and a still elite but slightly worse ball dominant guard like Kyrie is a bit of a waste.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,379
That may be one reason why the Bulls teams worked so well. Rodman was a superstar, but he only really cared about defense and rebounding, which meant that Jordan and Pippen were free to dominate the shots without worrying about appeasing Rodman. They really had just the exact right pieces in place. They weren't just great players; they FIT so well.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
I think nighthob is probably right that the Knicks are probably the only other realistic option for the Nets to trade Kyrie and clearly Brooklyn isn't trading him to the Knicks for several reasons.
The only possible reason is that they don’t like the quality of the roleplayers. Because otherwise they need to get him out of that locker room quickly.

Given that Durant is there with Harden and Jeff Green maybe they should consider trading Kyrie for Westbrook and getting the band back together?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,379
Ben Simmons for Kyrie Irving. Salaries work in the ol' NBA Trade Machine.

Philly could use a point guard that's more explosive offensively - would also open things up for Embiid more. Also allows Kyrie to dominate the ball more.

Simmons with Brooklyn might be the perfect "Rodman" type - can handle the ball, play excellent defense, and doesn't need to score much to be effective.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Philly won’t be giving up Ben Simmons for Kyrie Irving. Tobias Harris, maybe.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,184
Washington
Kyrie is a crazy person. I'd hate to see him on the Knicks or 76ers. I don't care how good he can be. I'm more concerned how disruptive he will be.