Paul George Discussion

This is inaccurate.

Oklahoma decided that they would not give him the full max contract. There was no rule keeping them from doing that. They had a policy of asking players to take less to stay in Oklahoma City. Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka both signed contracts for less than the market price to stay. Oklahoma asked James Harden to do the same thing and sign for 4/55 million (originally tried for 4/52 million) instead of 4/60 million which was the max. That was Oklahoma's choice, that wasn't forced on them. They had every ability to offer James a 4/60 million dollar deal and they decided not to in order to avoid luxury tax penalties.

The Thunder essentially claimed they couldn't pay for everybody. Westbrook took a cut, Ibaka took a cut, and then the gave 36 million to Kendrick Perkins which was the nail in the coffin. Here's a post breaking down the taxes they'd have to pay. But the point is they didn't and they decided to trade Harden instead. They let Harden go to avoid paying massive taxes. They essentially, and this was a discussion point at the time, chose to keep Kendrick Perkins over clearing enough space to keep Harden. Doesn't that situation sound similar to this one?

Here's the story from Windhorst in 2012 that details Oklahoma "staying to their script" of not paying massive luxury taxes and sacrificing to do so by forcing their players to either sign for below market value or get traded. This is what OKC has done and has always done. They jettison players before their big paydays with the exception of their stars. We all agree that George will be offered the max in this new climate where the stars need their max money, but that 100% means that the Thunder will do what is necessary to get below the luxury tax penalty. Carmelo Anthony's No Trade Clause was retained after his trade from New York to Oklahoma so he's going to likely stay (unless he's traded to one of his friends). That means that Adams is the likely candidate heading out as well as maybe Roberson.

 

If you mean that you think George is gone, I agree with you.

I try to be rational about these situations. I know I'm biased, but I still try to see it from other perspectives. I honestly though at this point don't see a situation where the Lakers don't at least have a GREAT pitch to throw at George. We can offer him almost anything he wants. We've heard complaints about our pitch before; usually it's about our product on the court. Well in that meeting we have:

1. Cheap, useful, versatile talent.
2. Money. As much as anyone can offer besides OKC.
3. The ability to get him a running mate that's max level if he wants it.
4. The LA market which is absolutely parched and in need of a "hero" on the court. The market is flat out famished waiting for a star to come take this place.
5. Flexibility to do what he wants done. Trade the young guys for established talent? Sure. Keep the young guys to stay fresh? Sure. Go get a max guy and trade the kids? Sure. Go get a max guy and keep the kids? Sure. Which direction do you want to go? We can do it for you.

We've got all the right answers. The question is can we sell it? And can we get someone else to buy it too? I don't know. I hope so. I would certainly buy it, but I'm not the guy on the court.

 

I agree about the super max, but Harden himself admitted if the Thunder had given him his max at the time he would have taken it. The reason he left is they offered him less than the max AND wanted him off the bench. That was too much to ask.

The point still stands that they refused an extra 5 million and it cost them at least 4 years of Harden. The franchise has a reputation for thrift for a reason.

 

Wait, so you're just going to ignore all evidence and a person's own account? How exactly can you make a reasoned argument? You made a claim that OKC couldn't offer more money, that was wrong and I proved that. I showed exactly how OKC decided not to offer the max, why, and how it affected Harden's decision making, and you just ignored it.

This is a statement of fact that you cannot escape: If the Thunder had made a full max offer, Harden would have stayed. That's the truth. It's been reported on for 6 years and has come from Harden himself. If you don't want to hear it or admit, then this conversation is over because I've already provided evidence for it. The Thunder had an opportunity to keep Harden around and stay competitive for a max offer and drew the line at 4/55 instead of 4/60, that happened, it's the truth. You can keep dismissing it if you want, but all that does is weaken your argument. I won't link any more articles proving this to you, I already have.

Well here's one more, I'm not sure if I included it last time. http://dailythunder.com/headlines/harden-money-was-the-deciding-factor-in-leaving-okc/

If you can provide any sort of evidence against Harden signing on for 4 more years, I'm all ears. At that point, who was thinking about the supermax extension for him? He and his agent were really counting on that for the 6th man? Sure Houston opened a door, but they couldn't have known in that moment that he'd be worth that much money thanks to the NBA propping him up for years. It was an opportunity, but it was a footnote. He could have stayed in OKC, won titles, earned more money off endorsements, and at that age why wouldn't he consider that?

1) you already, just now, admitted that they're cheap so I already have a point. I don't need to worry about Patrick Patterson.
2) I already have said, and have said multiple times, that they're going to give George the max. We've agreed on that.
3) Their cheapness is in reference to the fact that they will sign George to a new deal if they can and then they will proceed to gut their team from large, movable contracts. Considering that Carmelo has a NTC, it's likely that they'll have to dump Adams and/or Roberson in order to avoid major luxury taxes. OKC is good at the shuffle and will likely still be somewhat competitive, but their aversion to paying big luxury tax penalties is now well documented in this thread alone (by me). I have no doubt in my mind, and nobody else should either, that when the time comes they'll offer George the max and then proceed to shed salary.

 

For that contract, you are 100% wrong. OKC could have offered him the max and they didn't. I don't know why you're so stubbornly refusing to admit this point. They could have offered him the max, he didn't sign it. It's well documented. If you're unwilling to accept this truth, there's no point in continuing. I've provided nothing but evidence for you and you're at this point purposely ignoring that point. You're right it is very simple.

Of course it was down the line, but we've been talking about the details of negotiation in this page for weeks now: it doesn't matter down the line. In the moment, Harden was willing to sign a max extension to stay in OKC and he didn't. OKC held firm on their offer and then traded him when they couldn't get him to sign for below market value. If you need the sources again here you go:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ract-forced-okc-thunder-to-trade-james-harden
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1386950-james-harden-reportedly-rejects-4-year-deal-with-thunder
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/8563645

Had they offered the max at the time, James was going to sign that contract. After that, things would work themselves out. Once it was clear that OKC wasn't going to make that offer, then sure they moved on to what they may have considered a greener pasture, but the argument you're trying to make is revisionary and flies in the face of facts that I am showing to you. Moving out of OKC was a door closing (competing, trying to become a dynasty like the Warriors currently have) and a window opening (perhaps future competitiveness and a bigger payday). You're trying to frame what actually happened (OKC refusing to pay) as Harden masterminding his way to a massive payday that nobody was counting on. Nobody was counting on Harden, the 6th man, being an MVP candidate. You, as someone who hates Harden, should know and appreciate that. Unless you think Harden and his agent in 2012 knew that Harden was going to make multiple All-NBA teams (a condition of the super max). Harden didn't even make an All-NBA team until his 2014 season though, so it would seem that was more of a " hope and opportunity" than a "I was never going to sign in OKC" which is what you're essentially claiming even though he said the exact opposite and I provided a link to that as well.

And sure he signed that deal as soon as he landed, why wouldn't he? Again, this all happens only after Houston gets him. It's not a thought if he signs a max deal from OKC which was never offered. Because they're cheap.

This is false though. The OKC Thunder sold him only when he refused to sign for less than a max contract. They never offered a max contract. They sold high on him only after he refused to take a pay cut to stay with the team (that also wanted him to stay as the 6th man) and they refused to part ways with Kendrick Perkins in order to avoid the major tax hit that was coming. The Thunder picked thrift and Perkins over Harden. It's well documented.

It was never about 4 million (the number is actually 5 million). It was about what 5 million more to Harden would do to the Thunder's payroll. That is why the George and Harden situations are similar, it's pretty simple. If they pay George, they're going to have a luxury tax penalty that is worth roughly twice what they would be paying for the team regularly. The OKC Thunder will not do that. They will make moves to lessen their tax hit as they always have. That move will not include trading away George or Westbrook and is unlikely to include Carmelo (NTC). That means Adams and/or Roberson is likely out. That is my point and has been all along.

The point is that OKC refused to offer a full max contract and thus lost their chance at a dynasty. They had routinely asked players for years to make sacrifices so that the team's payroll was within reason and Harden refused to take less than the max. They refused to pay less than the max, and so they lost their chance at a dynasty. Now we're expected to believe they'd be willing to pay 300+ million dollars for this roster? Why would I believe that?

I don't know what you're arguing either! I've agreed with all of that already.

My point is that the finances will be dealt with after they've signed George (if they can). They'll shed players and salaries to find a way to get George to stay, but the cheapness of the OKC Thunder has been well documented. They will offer George all the money he is eligible for, but the team's depth will suffer for it. They'll likely lose some of their role players.

It's up to the Lakers to be able to use OKC's thrift against them. The Lakers (lying of course) can say that they'll pay whatever they have to so they can field a winner. Our position of flexibility is something the Thunder don't have and can't have at this point. Signing two max guys now buys us about 3-4 years before we have to sign the youngsters to new deals and at that point we can figure out who/where we have to make moves. It's a pretty great fit (assuming the youngsters prove they can win). And if we have to move two of them for a more established guy, again all the contracts meeting at the same time provides more opportunity for flexibility when it's time for everyone to get extensions or whatnot.