Would you trade Aldridge for Harden + Ibaka + Perkins?

[Rastapopoulos]

Here's the trade:

Why the Thunder might do it: they save a boatload of cash. They would have to shell out big bucks for Harden and Ibaka, and they already overspent on Perkins. They stand a good chance of losing Harden in a year or two anyway, as he would be crazy to be a third wheel to Durant and Westbrook forever.

Why the Blazers might do it: Aldridge is the best player, but we've seen that he's not really suited to be the #1. Plus we have Freeland, who plays the same position as Aldridge, and also there are a LOT of good forwards in this draft, but not much quality at guard. Plus Harden always KILLS us, and will be one of the top three SGs in the league very soon. It would be getting quantity for quality, but the quantity includes quality, and that worked for the Nets when they got Jefferson and Collins.

(Notice who Hollinger thinks wins the trade...)

 

[Voodoo]

It's an interesting idea, and depending on what Deron does I would think about it. It's tempting, but I think I would rather throw a max contract at Deron first, then think of secondary plan B moves such as this one. It also would depend on who we draft I supposed, I dunno.

 

[Masbee]

LOL at Perkins.

Another in a LONG LONG line of stiff centers who is cruising through his big contract after busting his butt and looking kinda good for a time. Dude fucking sucks now.

 

[Denny Crane]

No way the Thunder does this.

Ibaka has an 18.5 PER and puts up 9/8. They don't need him to score (but they would if they traded Harden).

But why would they trade Harden? He's putting up 17/4/4 with a 21.5 PER, and he's a great fit for them as 3rd scorer.

 

[Blazer4ever]

It's actualy interesting cause if the Thunder do it they become very much like the Heat. The thing is I'm not sure this is a good trade for them.

 

[PapaG]

It's actualy interesting cause if the Thunder do it they become very much like the Heat. The thing is I'm not sure this is a good trade for them.

That's a good point. I think the aggregate of Ibaka/Perkins/Harden as supporting players helps OKC more than adding another "A" player like LMA. I actually hope for an OKC/Miami Finals this year, just so we can see the Big 2 (with a solid supporting cast) vs. Big 3 (with a lesser-talented supporting cast) match-up.

 

[Ed O]

I'd do it, sure. Aldridge is good and has many good years ahead of him, but Ibaka and Harden are each four years younger than Aldridge and would start right away for Portland.

From OKC's perspective: they'd have to feel confident (a) they aren't going to be likely to win with Ibaka and Harden for the next few years, and (b) they could build their depth back up after trading three starting-level players for one.

Ed O.

 

[Masbee]

No way the Thunder does this.

Ibaka has an 18.5 PER and puts up 9/8. They don't need him to score (but they would if they traded Harden).

But why would they trade Harden? He's putting up 17/4/4 with a 21.5 PER, and he's a great fit for them as 3rd scorer.

How cute.

You are talking about "fit" and "production" like that is the be-all.

Welcome to the NBA, where contracts and young players needed to prove themselves trump all that other stuff.

It would be shocking if the Thunder could/would find a way to keep Harden and Ibaka, along with Durant and Westbrook who have already been extended. They can have 3 big contracts - not 4.

 

[Masbee]

I'd do it, sure. Aldridge is good and has many good years ahead of him, but Ibaka and Harden are each four years younger than Aldridge and would start right away for Portland.

From OKC's perspective: they'd have to feel confident (a) they aren't going to be likely to win with Ibaka and Harden for the next few years, and (b) they could build their depth back up after trading three starting-level players for one.

Ed O.

Actually, Perkins isn't starting level anymore. He plays for OKC only because you can play 4 on 5 offensively when you have to offensive disruptiveness of Westbrook and the offensive awesomeness of Durant and Harden on the floor.

Right now, he doesn't help them much, but he doesn't hurt them a lot either. On other teams, I think Perkins is purely 6 fouls off the bench.

So, in a trade, I consider him and his fat ($8mil, $8mil & $9mil) contract a big negative.

 

[illmatic99]

Talent wise, I would do this.

But practically, I would not. Harden is not ready to become the #1 player on a team yet, and I don't think he ever will. Giving LA to OKC would solidify them as a championship contender for years to come, because he gives them exactly what they're missing. With the crop of SGs and wings coming out in this draft, we don't need to go after Harden right now.

 

[PapaG]

I'd do it, sure. Aldridge is good and has many good years ahead of him, but Ibaka and Harden are each four years younger than Aldridge and would start right away for Portland.

From OKC's perspective: they'd have to feel confident (a) they aren't going to be likely to win with Ibaka and Harden for the next few years, and (b) they could build their depth back up after trading three starting-level players for one.

Ed O.

I have a hard time trading an 'A' player on a decent contract for a bunch of solid role players, two of which are due a contract soon. Teams work for years to get one All-NBA player; I think it's a bad idea to trade one away for role players.

 

[Nikolokolus]

How cute.

You are talking about "fit" and "production" like that is the be-all.

Welcome to the NBA, where contracts and young players needed to prove themselves trump all that other stuff.

It would be shocking if the Thunder could/would find a way to keep Harden and Ibaka, along with Durant and Westbrook who have already been extended. They can have 3 big contracts - not 4.

"Fit and production," honestly what the hell else is there in basketball? If you fit together with your teammates the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and production is ... well ... pretty goddamned important.

Forget about Perkins for a second. Harden and Ibaka for LaMarcus is probably about as close to a fair trade as I can think of, except that I'm not sure OKC does themselves many favors with this deal (except for not having to pick between Harden or Ibaka when the time comes) in exchange they get a very good offensive big man with some rebounding limitiations and in turn the Blazers get a go-to guy in Harden and a great defensive power-forward who are both young as hell with tons of good years ahead of them.

 

[Masbee]

"Fit and production," honestly what the hell else is there in basketball? If you fit together with your teammates the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and production is ... well ... pretty goddamned important.

Forget about Perkins for a second. Harden and Ibaka for LaMarcus is probably about as close to a fair trade as I can think of, except that I'm not sure OKC does themselves many favors with this deal (except for not having to pick between Harden or Ibaka when the time comes) in exchange they get a very good offensive big man with some rebounding limitiations and in turn the Blazers get a go-to guy in Harden and a great defensive power-forward who are both young as hell with tons of good years ahead of them.

You don't understand, Denny is arguing that OKC would prefer to keep Ibaka and Harden because they produce and "fit" so well.

I am arguing they don't get to make that choice.

It takes two to tango and those players MIGHT be willing to stay and be the unsung, unknown heros to the legit superstar Durant and the uber-ambitious Westbrook - but, only if they are paid. (my opinion of course).

And even then, that might not be enough. Harden might decide he wants the opportunity to prove he is a MAX player and he won't get that opportunity on the Thunder as currently constructed.

Last year I knew that the Thunder were going to have move one of their 4 best players. Because Maynor looked pretty good (before he got injured of course), and because there is overlap between Harden and Westbrook and because bigs that aren't stiffs (I am looking at you Perkins) are so hard to find, I thought (and still think) Westbrook should be the guy that gets moved.

There has been no rush for OKC to do anything just yet, but this summer might be a good time for them to make their move. If I were them I would look to trade Westbrook for a decent Center.

 

[RoyToy]

Trade Westbrook for a "decent" center?

Holy crap.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I don't do it because you don't trade your lone superstar for role players who will never be all-stars.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I don't do it because you don't trade your lone superstar for role players who will never be all-stars.

1. We don't have ANY "superstars".
2. Harden is not a "role player."

Other than that, your comment applies.

 

[BBert]

There has been no rush for OKC to do anything just yet, but this summer might be a good time for them to make their move. If I were them I would look to trade Westbrook for a decent Center.

That would be a bold move, therefore unlikely. But as I think about it, it could be the right move since they'd still have Harden. Would LaMarcus qualify as "a decent Center". Durant, Harden, Ibaka and LaMarcus would be a damn good team. Westbrook and Perkins for LaMarcus? And we draft a big? What other 'center' would work for them?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

1. We don't have ANY "superstars".
2. Harden is not a "role player."

Other than that, your comment applies.

LaMarcus Aldridge, all star and possible US Olympic Team member. Top 3 PF in the game.

James Harden, 6th man. Plays the easiest position in the league to get a good quality player at, so he won't likely ever make an allstar unless the thunder start winning multiple championships, even then, its going to be hard to do.

Other than that, oh fuck it.

 

[MickZagger]

I'd do it. Harden would take over where Roy left off. He can be a star. Ibaka is a great defensive presence and Perkins is a serviceable big body. Add a PF like Thomas Robinson and a PG in free agency, or the draft and were set.

I like this deal A LOT.

 

[Masbee]

Trade Westbrook for a "decent" center?

Holy crap.

They will never win shit without Post offense.

So, yeah, Holy Crap.

 

[Masbee]

That would be a bold move, therefore unlikely. But as I think about it, it could be the right move since they'd still have Harden. Would LaMarcus qualify as "a decent Center". Durant, Harden, Ibaka and LaMarcus would be a damn good team. Westbrook and Perkins for LaMarcus? And we draft a big? What other 'center' would work for them?

How about Marc Gasol?

 

[MickZagger]

LaMarcus Aldridge, all star and possible US Olympic Team member. Top 3 PF in the game.

James Harden, 6th man. Plays the easiest position in the league to get a good quality player at, so he won't likely ever make an allstar unless the thunder start winning multiple championships, even then, its going to be hard to do.

Other than that, oh fuck it.

SG is the easiest position to find a good player at? I don't agree.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

SG is the easiest position to find a good player at? I don't agree.

What is then?

 

[MickZagger]

What is then?

SF and PG. Its arguable that PF is just as easy to find a good player at.

You got Wade, Bryant, Joe Johnson, Ginobili and then probably Harden...

Harden's a top 5 SG in the league and he's a 23 year old.

 

[RR7]

Harden is only a role player because of the two guys ahead of him. In the same sense that Aldridge, with a healthy ROy and Oden, is/was a role player. Harden only gets 10 shots a game, a USG% of 21, and puts up 17/4/4 on good shooting numbers. His PER is 21.4. Aldridge was 21.5 last year in his break out year.
I really like Harden, and I think a ball dominant wing is the easiest, and best way to win in this league, so it'd be a yes from me. Especially because we wouldstill have cap space this offseason. And 2 lotto picks. I think you can take a chance at a big offer to someone like Brook Lopez, whose rebounding woudl be covered by Ibaka, draft BPA with both picks, maybe Drummond and Marshall, I dunno. But yes from me.
SG being easiest position to fill seems like a myth from 5 years ago that is hardly the case, if you mean a "true" SG. Most now are undersized, or just not good. Sorting through just guards who average 15/4 rebounds, 3 assits, there are 7 in the league. Wade and Kobe are the only other SGs, depending on how you classify Tyreke. I'd easily take him over Joe Johnson, and taking contract and age into consideraton, easily over him and Manu.

 

[PapaG]

Harden is only a role player because of the two guys ahead of him. In the same sense that Aldridge, with a healthy ROy and Oden, is/was a role player. Harden only gets 10 shots a game, a USG% of 21, and puts up 17/4/4 on good shooting numbers. His PER is 21.4. Aldridge was 21.5 last year in his break out year.
I really like Harden, and I think a ball dominant wing is the easiest, and best way to win in this league, so it'd be a yes from me. Especially because we wouldstill have cap space this offseason. And 2 lotto picks. I think you can take a chance at a big offer to someone like Brook Lopez, whose rebounding woudl be covered by Ibaka, draft BPA with both picks, maybe Drummond and Marshall, I dunno. But yes from me.
SG being easiest position to fill seems like a myth from 5 years ago that is hardly the case, if you mean a "true" SG. Most now are undersized, or just not good. Sorting through just guards who average 15/4 rebounds, 3 assits, there are 7 in the league. Wade and Kobe are the only other SGs, depending on how you classify Tyreke. I'd easily take him over Joe Johnson, and taking contract and age into consideraton, easily over him and Manu.

So you're basically trading LMA for Harden, who will need a big contract, with Ibaka likely headed elsewhere, and Perkins already on the downside of his career. Does this actually improve the team? I don't see it. You get rid of the one guy who and score in the post and replace him with a wing player. Seems like a bad idea to me, but what do I know.

OKC has Durant and Westbrook, with Harden being an afterthought for the defense. Without LMA, Portland would have Harden, I guess as their primary scorer, with Batum and ??? scoring points.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

the key to this trade would be to keep both harden AND ibaka long term

 

[illmatic99]

What is then?

In this league right now, it's either PF or PG. There are very few good SGs.

 

[RR7]

So you're basically trading LMA for Harden, who will need a big contract, with Ibaka likely headed elsewhere, and Perkins already on the downside of his career. Does this actually improve the team? I don't see it. You get rid of the one guy who and score in the post and replace him with a wing player. Seems like a bad idea to me, but what do I know.

OKC has Durant and Westbrook, with Harden being an afterthought for the defense. Without LMA, Portland would have Harden, I guess as their primary scorer, with Batum and ??? scoring points.

I'd actually prefer it without Perkins. But I don't see why Ibaka is going elsewhere, and where I said any such thing. I like Harden more, for sure, and he is the centerpiece. But Ibaka is a very good role player, and I mentioned how his defense/rebounding could cover for someone like Lopez if we were able to get him.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Having proposed the trade, I really don't think OKC would ever go for it (at least while Sam Presti is in charge). They seem to have some magic voodoo over their players where they don't even become free agents but just sign on to extensions. So it would take word coming from the owner that hell no, he would not pay big $ for Harden and Ibaka.

Even then, I think if we make this offer, they give a counter offer that does not include BOTH Harden and Ibaka. But they don't have people signed to big contracts (other than the big 2). Collison did have a big contract, but it was massively front-loaded. If they threw Collison in instead of Ibaka I'd still be tempted because he's a very smart player and sort of their Varejao. Getting a bit old, though, and he's been with them longer than any player, so they might be sentimentally attached to him.