James Harden trade idea

I know a lot of people dislike James, but I think he would be a great fit in the backcourt with Lonzo. Maybe we could trade Jrue and some filler for him. Also, this would allow for Zion to play that super Draymond role. What say ye? Yay or nay?

Not something that interests me.

ISO ball doesn't fit for a lot of teams. ISO ball will never win championships.

Lebron won with iso ball in Cleveland and the Lakers are a heavy iso team now. Plus we do need a primary ball handler since they want to take some of that away from Lonzo. Also, James could help with the Pelicans losing so many games in the final minutes because they can’t get a basket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonej

Lebron won with iso ball in Cleveland and the Lakers are a heavy iso team now. Plus we do need a primary ball handler since they want to take some of that away from Lonzo. Also, James could help with the Pelicans losing so many games in the final minutes because they can’t get a basket.

---

Lebron is an entirely different calibre of player than James Harden, that's first.

Second of all, Lonzo is not a player you should be making long term franchise altering decisions around. He's a rotation player in good circumstances, and actively bad in poor ones. If we want Zion to reach his peak he needs to be getting ball-handler reps, and that's also true of Ingram. Importing someone like Harden is antithetical to that, and Harden's also on a massive contract that hamstrings any ability to do much else to patch up the problems, and he's going to be 32 by the end of this season iirc.

Thirdly, in what universe is James Harden the solution to the Pelicans losing in clutch time? Not only is he a notably poor clutch player, but you don't want to develop that play within guys like Zion?

This is essentially the kind of rush-job move you make when you're impatient. No thanks to Harden on the Pelicans, thank you.

Strong post count to thread correlation

James Harden is toxic for any offense that wants to win a championship.

Harden's ISO-Ball? Sorry, I have no interest in having Ingram, Zion, and the rest becoming a spectator, like me, and getting paid for it to boot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonej

I know a lot of people dislike James, but I think he would be a great fit in the backcourt with Lonzo. Maybe we could trade Jrue and some filler for him. Also, this would allow for Zion to play that super Draymond role. What say ye? Yay or nay?

---

I would do it and so would Griff and would include anything not named Zion or Ingram.

Move Jrue to a 3rd deal, take those assets and Lonzo and Hayes, and if that interested the Rockets, bring in Harden. But I am sure Houston would prefer other offers. But for me, you do that deal every time and there are indications that he wants to play other styles - and doesnt even like the system he played in Houston. But that was their best chance to win games so he did what he had to do. But I guarantee you that his usage will go down in his next stop and his playing style will change a bit. Wont be with us, but I would do that trade in a millisecond.

I entered the thread thinking that the OP would certainly contain a reasonable option for the Pelicans to facilitate a trade of Harden to a third team. Shocked to find anyone would advocate for Harden to the Pels, especially in a trade moving Jrue and filler. I wouldn’t want Harden on the Pelicans for just the filler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I would do it and so would Griff and would include anything not named Zion or Ingram.

Move Jrue to a 3rd deal, take those assets and Lonzo and Hayes, and if that interested the Rockets, bring in Harden. But I am sure Houston would prefer other offers. But for me, you do that deal every time and there are indications that he wants to play other styles - and doesnt even like the system he played in Houston. But that was their best chance to win games so he did what he had to do. But I guarantee you that his usage will go down in his next stop and his playing style will change a bit. Wont be with us, but I would do that trade in a millisecond.

---

i was shock to hear that he didnt like the style of play in houston...he made it to the playoffs as a top seed but he was the one who faded in some playoffs games....

give me a 3 of harden,,ingram and zion..keep hart also....houston can have anyone else on the team and picks....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I would do it and so would Griff and would include anything not named Zion or Ingram.

Move Jrue to a 3rd deal, take those assets and Lonzo and Hayes, and if that interested the Rockets, bring in Harden. But I am sure Houston would prefer other offers. But for me, you do that deal every time and there are indications that he wants to play other styles - and doesnt even like the system he played in Houston. But that was their best chance to win games so he did what he had to do. But I guarantee you that his usage will go down in his next stop and his playing style will change a bit. Wont be with us, but I would do that trade in a millisecond.

---

I don’t have your knowledge of basketball or the business side of the game, but it would seem that acquiring Harden would be antithetical to everything I have seen you write on here. Harden is ball dominant and a horrible defender on a huge contract. His presence would seem to go against the desire to put the ball in the hands of Zion and Ingram and would be a big drag on the team’s defensive capacity. Harden is a master of the ole defense.

I swear, you guys just think the perfect player is gonna magically appear. If you dont think the greatest iso scorer of all time, and perhaps the most efficient high volume player of all time is good enough, then you are gonna be disappointed in the future.

You guys probably would have been saying no to Peyton Manning as your QB in 2005 because he puts up huge regular season stats but always fails in the playoffs - getting blown out by the Pats, Jets, etc.

Harden has flaws and likely will never win a title as a #1 guy, but some people act like they can turn their nose up at 55-60 wins and a second or third round exit, as if this franchise has gotten to that point so many times before.

You have to factor in that Pels players never get calls driving, so his scoring would dip by at least 10 points a game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I swear, you guys just think the perfect player is gonna magically appear. If you dont think the greatest iso scorer of all time, and perhaps the most efficient high volume player of all time is good enough, then you are gonna be disappointed in the future.

You guys probably would have been saying no to Peyton Manning as your QB in 2005 because he puts up huge regular season stats but always fails in the playoffs - getting blown out by the Pats, Jets, etc.

Harden has flaws and likely will never win a title as a #1 guy, but some people act like they can turn their nose up at 55-60 wins and a second or third round exit, as if this franchise has gotten to that point so many times before.

---

Nobody thinks the perfect player is going to appear out of nowhere, but the reality is that if you're trying to win a championship at any point in the next decade, a good way to ensure that you don't do that is cashing in all of your assets at once to acquire someone like James Harden. Massive contract, on the wrong side of 30, plays a style of basketball that is intensely selfish, has a long record of making star calibre teammates absolutely miserable, has been consistently unable to get it done regardless of the quality of the stars paired with him, etc.

There's a difference between saying ''I'm not going to make any move until the absolute perfect player comes along'' and saying ''I'm not going to completely annihilate all of my future options and flexibility in one fell swoop in order to acquire a guy that I'm pretty sure doesn't actually make me more likely to win a championship in the long run than the path I'm currently on anyway''.

Maybe 54 wins and a second round catastrophe where James Harden jacks up 36 shots and hits 4 of them sounds like a good goal to you, but it sounds like misery to me, and a complete dead-end in terms of long term success. No thanks.

I hate Harden, but I'd much rather trade for Harden than try to stand pat with Jrue.

If you have a chance to get a star in the NBA you take it. Curry isn’t a perfect player, but he is a a MVP in the right system. When I said filler I meant Jrue and anything but Zion and Ingram. I said filler because I didn’t do the research to figure out what contracts we needed to send out to make it work. The draft picks wouldn’t matter much because hopefully we are a perineal playoff team for the foreseeable future. That seems like a great big 3 foundation to build your team with to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonej

If you have a chance to get a star in the NBA you take it. Curry isn’t a perfect player, but he is a a MVP in the right system. When I said filler I meant Jrue and anything but Zion and Ingram. I said filler because I didn’t do the research to figure out what contracts we needed to send out to make it work. The draft picks wouldn’t matter much because hopefully we are a perineal playoff team for the foreseeable future. That seems like a great big 3 foundation to build your team with to me.

---

Curry >>>>>>>>> Harden

Edit: also, what do you mean ''to build your team with''? You acquire Harden, that's your team built. He'd cost you most of your assets and most of your cap, and you don't have years and years left for him either, he's 31 nearly 32. It's win now, immediately, there's no foundation followed by a period of building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Nobody thinks the perfect player is going to appear out of nowhere, but the reality is that if you're trying to win a championship at any point in the next decade, a good way to ensure that you don't do that is cashing in all of your assets at once to acquire someone like James Harden. Massive contract, on the wrong side of 30, plays a style of basketball that is intensely selfish, has a long record of making star calibre teammates absolutely miserable, has been consistently unable to get it done regardless of the quality of the stars paired with him, etc.

There's a difference between saying ''I'm not going to make any move until the absolute perfect player comes along'' and saying ''I'm not going to completely annihilate all of my future options and flexibility in one fell swoop in order to acquire a guy that I'm pretty sure doesn't actually make me more likely to win a championship in the long run than the path I'm currently on anyway''.

Maybe 54 wins and a second round catastrophe where James Harden jacks up 36 shots and hits 4 of them sounds like a good goal to you, but it sounds like misery to me, and a complete dead-end in terms of long term success. No thanks.

---

You act like the team would have nothing once Harden is gone or out of his prime in 3-4 years. You would still have Zion and Ingram, who have hopefully been in some insanely important games and see what is required to win at the highest level. And again, you keep assuming that Harden will only play that way. I dont. I think he would be ecstatic to have some pressure off him with a force of nature like Zion and another wing who could go get his shot.

I just caution people on the philosophy of waiting and building, waiting and building, developing, developing, and developing.

Go find me a list of guys who continued to miss playoffs and be on losing teams for multiple years to start their career and then go on to be top 1 or 2 guys on a title team later on. It is rare. If and when the Pels miss the playoffs this year, that will be Ingram's 5th straight year on a losing team that missed the playoffs. I have searched NBA history and struggled mightily to find guys who started that way and then went on to be a top player for a title team. Zion would be on year two. And if you keep going slow, with as loaded as the West is, be an underdog to make the playoffs in year 3. Then, after year 3, he has the option of signing his 2nd deal. Why would he be dying to do that after going 0-3 in his young career with regard to making the playoffs?

I am all for being patient in 95% of scenarios. But if you can get a top player - a Harden or an Embiid, etc....you get that player. Heck, if Lebron was available, I would go get him despite his age. Seeing what it takes to win in real games of consequence is immensely valuable

Is Curry really that much better than Harden? If you replace Curry with Harden they still have a dynasty over there in my opinion. Harden has been on some good teams, but has never been on a team as good a the Curry warriors. You may be inclined to point to OKC, but Harden was still on his rookie contract and not nearly the player he is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

You act like the team would have nothing once Harden is gone or out of his prime in 3-4 years. You would still have Zion and Ingram, who have hopefully been in some insanely important games and see what is required to win at the highest level. And again, you keep assuming that Harden will only play that way. I dont. I think he would be ecstatic to have some pressure off him with a force of nature like Zion and another wing who could go get his shot.

I just caution people on the philosophy of waiting and building, waiting and building, developing, developing, and developing.

I am all for being patient in 95% of scenarios. But if you can get a top player - a Harden or an Embiid, etc....you get that player. Heck, if Lebron was available, I would go get him despite his age. Seeing what it takes to win in real games of consequence is immensely valuable

---

Why do you assume that Harden would be pleased to play differently with Zion when he was totally happy to force CP3 and Westbrook into extreme-secondary positions. He barely sacrificed his touches for either of them, why do you think he's going to be relieved and grateful to hand over the touches to a 20 year old?

Again, the difference in calibre between Lebron and Harden is still so startling that even mentioning them as if the circumstances are the same is kind of an absurdity of equivocation in the first place.

I do not think Harden added to this team at the probable cost of Jrue+Hart+filler+picks is worth it. If I thought he would turn us into a title contender for a few years, then my response would be different but I don't think he does. He doesn't play the kind of basketball that wins championships, as has been proven by his failure to do so consistently regardless of the surrounding cast for years. If all you care about is a few years making the playoffs and nothing beyond that, then good for you, I get why maybe you'd be slavering for a Harden trade. I watch basketball as a hobby: that is, for fun. So I want it to be fun to watch, and then as a secondary priority I want to try and win championships. Harden is a great recipe for a boring to watch team that doesn't win rings. There shouldn't be confusion as to why that's something I don't find appealing.

I also don't think adding Harden is the only way to become a consistent playoff team either. There are other, more sustainable paths, and I would prefer we walk those: maybe we don't quite make the playoffs this year, but we should be in the playoffs next year and the year after as long as we don't make any stupid rush-job decisions, and sure those will likely be first or second round exits without serious title equity but guess what? That's what having Harden on the team would result in as well, except we'd still have assets and cap potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonej

Is Curry really that much better than Harden? If you replace Curry with Harden they still have a dynasty over there in my opinion. Harden has been on some good teams, but has never been on a team as good a the Curry warriors. You may be inclined to point to OKC, but Harden was still on his rookie contract and not nearly the player he is today.

---

Yes. Curry is so much better off-ball, so much more willing to sacrifice and play within a team concept, worlds better as a shooter, etc. You say Harden has never been on a team as good as the Curry Warriors, but whose fault is that? Curry is the central part of what made the Curry Warriors so incredible: he was the world's greatest shooter, putting up arguably the greatest scoring seasons of all time, but was perfectly happy to sacrifice shots and touches for guys like Durant and play second fiddle at times, leveraging his legitimately ludicrous shooting gravity to make everything easier for everyone else in a way that Harden just has never really displayed.

I would take prime, healthy Curry over prime, healthy Harden every single time.

It is a pointless debate, because he isnt coming here. I just think it is crazy how the possibility of the unknown, of the vague is always so much mroe appealing that adding players who are currently very good....or in this case, generational.

All these picks and flexibility will become real players eventually. Ones with huge flaws...much bigger flaws than Harden without the spectacular things he does. But his flaws are known. His history is known. So, stay away because we dont like the known if it is really, really good. The known is only okay if it ensures us being the best.

Personally, I dont think we ever win a title, and I am fine with that. Perhaps that is why I would be okay with Harden and just being great while putting Ingram and Zion in those games so that they can lead the team to 55 wins for the rest of the decade without him. Give me 2nd or 3rd round exits for the next decade over hope of being okay for a while and then making a leap to greatness once we add guys who are just theoretical right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonej

Is Curry really that much better than Harden?

---

https://i.imgur.com/V0l2ZSW.gif?noredirect

This sounds exactly like what the Lakers did last year. They traded everything that they had for a star player that never won big. I heard a lot of people say that the Pelicans won this deal. I’ am not really hearing that now. If we could just make a deep run you never know what could happen. Maybe the injury gods bless us for once and every starting point guard for each western conference team gets hurt like they did for the Warriors. Look what happened to Miami this year past year. You just never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonej

This sounds exactly like what the Lakers did last year. They traded everything that they had for a star player that never won big. I heard a lot of people say that the Pelicans won this deal. I’ am not really hearing that now. If we could just make a deep run you never know what could happen. Maybe the injury gods bless us for once and every starting point guard for each western conference team gets hurt like they did for the Warriors. Look what happened to Miami this year past year. You just never know.

---

The difference between AD and Harden, of course, is that AD was built to be a secondary and never had that primary guy to run things, whereas Harden is built to be a primary, refuses point blank to take a backseat, and is just simply not good enough at that to win on the highest level. It's a very different sort of player archetype. Poor comparison.

I think we need a primary scorer. I don’t think Ingram is ready to be that player yet, and I think Zion is more of a secondary unselfish player like AD is. This is how Coach K used Zion in college. Zion was the secondary option at Duke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonej

I think we need a primary scorer. I don’t think Ingram is ready to be that player yet, and I think Zion is more of a secondary unselfish player like AD is. This is how Coach K used Zion in college. Zion was the secondary option at Duke.

---

Coach K is, with all due respect, not the kind of coach who is about maximising any individual player's talent. Zion has the potential to be a primary: you want someone who has shown the flashes he has shown, that is as young as he is, and under cost control like he is, to be given the chance to maximise whatever skill he has in a given area. You don't look at someone with Zion's potential and, at the age of 20 with fewer than 30 NBA games under their belt, go ''yeah he's just a secondary, let's just not even try that''.

''We need a primary scorer'' Zion is 20 years old. Ingram is 22 and averages 25 a game. We have time. It's not like we're in the middle of these guys primes and we're on the clock: of course you want to start winning as soon as possible but you don't want to sell your future down the road because you panicked early and made irrational, rushed decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

The difference between AD and Harden, of course, is that AD was built to be a secondary and never had that primary guy to run things, whereas Harden is built to be a primary, refuses point blank to take a backseat, and is just simply not good enough at that to win on the highest level. It's a very different sort of player archetype. Poor comparison.

---

We dont have an alpha dog on this team. PFs don’t run offenses. Zion is still very unproven. Ingram is a secondary player. Jrue is a secondary player. I agree with MM. Just to be a playoff team for a few years would dramatically change the culture and perception of this team. I’d stay away from Westbrook, but Harden is still a very good player who won’t be coming here. He goes to Brooklyn or Miami if he is traded imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkhorse985

We dont have an alpha dog on this team. PFs don’t run offenses. Zion is still very unproven. Ingram is a secondary player. Jrue is a secondary player. I agree with MM. Just to be a playoff team for a few years would dramatically change the culture and perception of this team. I’d stay away from Westbrook, but Harden is still a very good player who won’t be coming here. He goes to Brooklyn or Miami if he is traded imo.

---

PFs dont run offenses?

I suppose that depends what you mean by power forwards, because on defense Lebron plays PF a huge portion of the time and has done for years, and he very certainly runs offense. Blake Griffin has also done a lot of offense running, at times, and of course historically guys like Charles Barkley were also fairly on-ball players at times in their careers. Ben Simmons today, also, is a guy who traditionally would have been thought of as a PF or SF but instead plays a more on-ball creation role due to his individual skills.

I'm not interested in looking at a 20 year old who, less than a year ago, everyone was thrilled to acquire and, less than 30 games into their NBA career, completely shutting down avenues of development. Just because Zion isn't the new shiny toy anymore doesn't mean we need to start searching for a fresh new novelty when we've yet to even see what we've really got.

''We don't have an alpha dog on this team'' we have a roster than is more than 50% under the age of 25, iirc. We don't know what we have right now, not really. And we never will if we just start jumping at shadows every single time something happens.

Patience is a good thing, actually.

Sources: The Rockets continue to tell teams that they plan “run it back” with Harden this season. So far, there have been no trade discussions between the Rockets and Nets. https://t.co/wHrTqvCPew

— Adrian Wojnarowski (@wojespn) November 15, 2020