Okc is not the Lakers or Boston or NY. They may NEVER get lucky enough to have a talent like Durant again. I do not think they understand how hard it is when you are not an attractive market for players to want to sign in FA or agree to resign if traded to your team.Over Westbrook? no
Over Ibaka, yes.
I actually think that OKC should have fork up the cash and keep all of them. It's a bad business move because they can make the money back if the team goes deep into the playoffs every year. It's not like they lose money by keeping Harden, they just make a bit less (with the potential to make more) than letting him go.
Dre it's ok to say you put way too much value in one series. No need to end your posts all the time with it so you don't look like you're flip flopping. Just say you were wrong and move on.....say it now before it's trendy to say. I'm honestly on the fence about who's better for OKC between the two, even after Harden's finals no show.
First of all "stop being a cheap skate" and pay for your appDre it's ok to say you put way too much value in one series. No need to end your posts all the time with it so you don't look like you're flip flopping. Just say you were wrong and move on.
As for the topic, only guard I think they should of taken (kept) over Westbrook is Chris Paul.
Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App
They would have had to find a 4/5 that could shoot from outside 6" to make it work, but if they had that deal might have been for the best for both teams.People are going to accuse me of being a homer, but I feel like OKC may have been better off finding a way to turn Westbrook into Rondo(making significantly less than Russ) and used the savings to pay Harden.