Originally Posted by Edub

You act like you believe there aren't owners out there with that philosophy, and that those aren't some of the best run franchises in the world.

You act like there aren't 30 owners who spend their money however they see fit. And have been rather successful in life because of it.

32 rich people own teams. It's pretty easy to understand why they can't all compete at the highest level successfully year in and year out.

 

Originally Posted by Hughes4

You act like there aren't 30 owners who spend their money however they see fit. And have been rather successful in life because of it.

I don't think I have acted like there aren't 30 owners who can do whatever they want, in fact I believe in that philosophy too. I just like the ones who care about winning more and think they are better at what they do.

 

Originally Posted by Edub

I don't think I have acted like there aren't 30 owners who can do whatever they want, in fact I believe in that philosophy too. I just like the ones who care about winning more and think they are better at what they do.

Oh yes, yes. They are "better" because they share your values.

Thunders as a franchise turned a pretty good profit last year in a league where playoff teams struggle to break even.
But nahh. they aren't good owners.
they hired Sam Presti. that makes them better than 25 owners on that merit alone.

haha I will not retract, I do not believe in that philosophy.

But I will say that I do believe some owners who think about profits first are good owners, and that win first owners aren't always good owners. Just think that some of the best share the idea that winning is #1. Simple example is I think Mark Cuban is a better owner than Donald Sterling, and a lot of it (not all) has to do with the fact that Cuban, or any owner in the league, cares more about winning basketball games than Sterling does, and they dive deeper into their pockets to prove it.

You sound more like Stephen A. than I do.

You put a lot of words between the lines of what I actually said. Here is what I wrote which started this discussion:

Don't like the trade at all for OKC, the owners are already billionaires just pay the fucking tax and take your shot at some rings. Now there is some uncertainty for the team to make the conference final when they were pretty much already a favorite. Pussies, make your beaucoup money elsewhere.

Never said OKC Thunder owners don't care, I said some owners don't after you brought that point up later...never said the Thunder don't have a top tier GM, I know they do.

I said I don't like the trade and it has to do with Harden giving OKC a better chance at winning a ring. In this specific case, I believe it would have been worth it to hold on to Harden even if it cost the billionaire a couple million extra, at the very least until next year and assess further luxury tax implications then. My throwaway comment about making "boocoo" money elsewhere seems to be what got you stuck on shit that wasn't even a point until you brought it up.

 

Originally Posted by Hughes4

and B. maybe, just maybe, these professional basketball analysts dont think Harden is worth a max. especially not a max on a team with 3 huge contracts. it's just economic at that point.

I'd say the bolded part is correct.

Harden is a max player...he just wasn't going to be a max player for OKC and have things work out well for the team.

 

Originally Posted by AMARTIN1181

whatever, just more room for westbrook to swag on every one. Harden was just holding him back, just need to find someone to take durant off their hands now. In other news, Lin and harden will be fun to watch.

Trooof

 

Originally Posted by JRoth15

Harden is a max player...he just wasn't going to be a max player for OKC and have things work out well for the team.

egg-zack-tly

*whom

 

Originally Posted by TheAlbatross

So Harden gets steamrolled by Lebron in the finals and now he can't play defense?

OKC shoulda ditched Westbrook and kept Harden. Lots of good point guards. Sames not true of shooting guards. Harden will be the best player at his position in 2 years. Westbrook will never be that at his

Who are the 5 point guards that are currently better than Russell Westbrook? Chris Paul is a given. But then it's pretty open? To me, Westbrook is 100% a top 5 point guard. I'd assume you have Rondo, Deron, Nash, Lawson/Parker ahead of him? Really questionnable. I'd have Westbrook #2 personally and could understand people taking Rondo over him. After that, don't see anyone else.

 

Originally Posted by Bullets43

Who are the 5 point guards that are currently better than Russell Westbrook? Chris Paul is a given. But then it's pretty open? To me, Westbrook is 100% a top 5 point guard. I'd assume you have Rondo, Deron, Nash, Lawson/Parker ahead of him? Really questionnable. I'd have Westbrook #2 personally and could understand people taking Rondo over him. After that, don't see anyone else.

What am I missing here? I'm obviously discounting Derrick Rose due to injury, but he'd be #2 to Paul to me if healthy. Who else am I forgetting, Kyrie Irving I'd have close, but don't think he's superior to Westbrook at this point.

I'm tired from Saints getting owned. What am I missing?

it's okay to just say you forgot about rose