NickNaylor said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

lol dude, c'mon. I'm a Mavs fan and can't stand James Harden but using Steph Curry to argue that James Harden isn't a historically great shooter is ****ing nuts. He can literally shoot the ball from anywhere on the court and your analysis doesn't take into account the difficulty of the shots (which are high).

Plus, I think you're arguing different things. Your saying James isn't the most efficient shooter (which, fine, whatever), but his ability to shoot is undeniably great. Quick release, unlimited range, and can make it anywhere around the perimeter off dribble or catch and shoot.

---

I'm not the one that brought up Curry.

Harden is an elite scorer. He's not an elite shooter. He does make shots from all over and does have a super wide variety of moves, which makes him hard to guard.

But he doesn't shoot at elite rates. He shoots at league average. That's not what you want from a guy that shoots volume threes. You let him utilize threes to make the defense keep serious on him. Maybe have some better shot selection so you waste fewer possessions, too.

---

I don't think you understand your own argument. Raw percentages taken without context are meaningless. Horace Grant converted a higher percentage on mid-range set shots than Michael Jordan did on fadeaways, but the function of each is totally different. The same goes for Harden relative to catch-and-shoot types. Just because Steve Kerr (45.4%) and Hubert Davis (44.1%) have the highest career three-point percentages doesn't mean we have to regard them as the best three-point shooters of all time. The circumstances that created those numbers has to matter, or else the numbers lose all meaning.

Harden IS an elite shooter. He'll probably finish 1 or 2 in 3pts made when his career is over.

NickNaylor said:

---

Kellso said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Good Poster said:

---

I will give Morey credit for two things:

1. Obvious answer is hit commitment to analytics, he changed the way teams are built in the NBA.

2. While many teams waited for the Warriors run to end, he went all in and said he is gonna try to beat them (and almost did)

But yes, he is a pretty overrated GM and probably wasted Harden's prime.

---

I completely agree with the bolded.

I'm not so sure about #1. I understand a lot of team's now shoot a ton of three pointers, but Im not sure if that is a good thing.

Earl Watson had a great interview where he stated that the analytics of taking a ton of shots doesn't quite work as well unless you have all time great shooters like the Warriors, or a James Harden.

---

Harden an all time great scorer? Sure. All-time great shooter? Not even close.

---

What is up with some of you guys on this site, and the nitpicking?? I swear some of yall act like females.

James Harden is an incredible 3 point shooter. Steph Curry might be the only player I've ever seen that can shoot 3's off the dribble better than Harden.

I don't need to look up his stats to confirm because the eye test is all I need.

Same with Luka. Some players like Luka and Harden have lower 3 point percentages than you might expect because of the sheer number of difficult 3 point shots they attempt.

My initial point remains the same. It might not be smart for a team to take a ton of three pointers if they don't have Steph Curry, James Harden or Klay Thompson.

---

We are talking about analytics use, not the eye test of know-nothing fans.

Harden hit 35,5% this year from three. He hit 55,6% from two. He scored fewer points per possession when jacking up a three than shooting a two.

The NBA average is 1.1 points per possession throughout the season for every team across the league. The worst team averaged 1.052 points per possession.

When you are a 35% three point shooter, you average 1.05 points per possession (3*.35) - so roughly equal to the worst offensive team in the league. A guy like Steph Curry averages 1.31 points per possession on his career 43,5% shooting. A 37,0% shooter gets 1.11 points per possession, so that should be the minimum level for volume shooting. Harden has been below that mark each of the last 5 years and has only been above it twice.

As a team, Houston shot just 34,5% from three, or 1.035 points per possession.

The eye test doesn't mean much when talking about the analytics of basketball.

---

Oh look.... it's an analytics nerd that most likely never played basketball past the 6th grade that thinks he knows everything about hoops.

Only a moron would state that James Harden is not an elite 3 point shooter. and I try not to name call on this site.

M.C. Swag said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

lol dude, c'mon. I'm a Mavs fan and can't stand James Harden but using Steph Curry to argue that James Harden isn't a historically great shooter is ****ing nuts. He can literally shoot the ball from anywhere on the court and your analysis doesn't take into account the difficulty of the shots (which are high).

Plus, I think you're arguing different things. Your saying James isn't the most efficient shooter (which, fine, whatever), but his ability to shoot is undeniably great. Quick release, unlimited range, and can make it anywhere around the perimeter off dribble or catch and shoot.

---

I'm not the one that brought up Curry.

Harden is an elite scorer. He's not an elite shooter. He does make shots from all over and does have a super wide variety of moves, which makes him hard to guard.

But he doesn't shoot at elite rates. He shoots at league average. That's not what you want from a guy that shoots volume threes. You let him utilize threes to make the defense keep serious on him. Maybe have some better shot selection so you waste fewer possessions, too.

---

I don't think you understand your own argument. Raw percentages taken without context are meaningless. Horace Grant converted a higher percentage on mid-range set shots than Michael Jordan did on fadeaways, but the function of each is totally different. The same goes for Harden relative to catch-and-shoot types. Just because Steve Kerr (45.4%) and Hubert Davis (44.1%) have the highest career three-point percentages doesn't mean we have to regard them as the best three-point shooters of all time. The circumstances that created those numbers has to matter, or else the numbers lose all meaning.

Harden IS an elite shooter. He'll probably finish 1 or 2 in 3pts made when his career is over.

---

He's an elite scorer. He is not an elite shooter. If he was an elite shooter, he wouldn't be league average.

Kerr is absolutely an elite shooter, but I agree a catch and shoot guy is very different than an off-the-dribble guy.

But Curry and Klay are elite off the dribble or catch and shoot. Harden is elite at creating his shot, but not necessarily at hitting 3s. Maybe with some better shot selection, he would get into that range of 37%+ that makes volume shooting better.

No one is calling Malone a better scorer than Jordan because Malone scored more points than Jordan. Harden will make a lot of threes in his career out of pure volume. No one is going to remember him as a more elite shooter than say Nash or Reggie Miller. He ain't there. And no one is going to remember Karl Malone as a better scorer than Michael Jordan, either.

Kellso said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

Kellso said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Good Poster said:

---

I will give Morey credit for two things:

1. Obvious answer is hit commitment to analytics, he changed the way teams are built in the NBA.

2. While many teams waited for the Warriors run to end, he went all in and said he is gonna try to beat them (and almost did)

But yes, he is a pretty overrated GM and probably wasted Harden's prime.

---

I completely agree with the bolded.

I'm not so sure about #1. I understand a lot of team's now shoot a ton of three pointers, but Im not sure if that is a good thing.

Earl Watson had a great interview where he stated that the analytics of taking a ton of shots doesn't quite work as well unless you have all time great shooters like the Warriors, or a James Harden.

---

Harden an all time great scorer? Sure. All-time great shooter? Not even close.

---

What is up with some of you guys on this site, and the nitpicking?? I swear some of yall act like females.

James Harden is an incredible 3 point shooter. Steph Curry might be the only player I've ever seen that can shoot 3's off the dribble better than Harden.

I don't need to look up his stats to confirm because the eye test is all I need.

Same with Luka. Some players like Luka and Harden have lower 3 point percentages than you might expect because of the sheer number of difficult 3 point shots they attempt.

My initial point remains the same. It might not be smart for a team to take a ton of three pointers if they don't have Steph Curry, James Harden or Klay Thompson.

---

We are talking about analytics use, not the eye test of know-nothing fans.

Harden hit 35,5% this year from three. He hit 55,6% from two. He scored fewer points per possession when jacking up a three than shooting a two.

The NBA average is 1.1 points per possession throughout the season for every team across the league. The worst team averaged 1.052 points per possession.

When you are a 35% three point shooter, you average 1.05 points per possession (3*.35) - so roughly equal to the worst offensive team in the league. A guy like Steph Curry averages 1.31 points per possession on his career 43,5% shooting. A 37,0% shooter gets 1.11 points per possession, so that should be the minimum level for volume shooting. Harden has been below that mark each of the last 5 years and has only been above it twice.

As a team, Houston shot just 34,5% from three, or 1.035 points per possession.

The eye test doesn't mean much when talking about the analytics of basketball.

---

Oh look.... it's an analytics nerd that most likely never played basketball past the 6th grade that thinks he knows everything about hoops.

Only a moron would state that James Harden is not an elite 3 point shooter. and I try not to name call on this site.

---

He's a league average 3pt shooter. Now he uses the threat of it and that he isn't afraid to launch it to set up a lot of moves that get him scoring opportunities, but Harden is absolutely not an elite 3-point shooter and is absolutely an elite scorer. Jordan hit all those threes against Portland, but wasn't an elite 3-point shooter, either. Kobe wasn't an elite 3-point shooter, either, and he still made 1800 threes.

Harden and the Rockets would absolutely be better off shooting fewer threes but using the threat of them to set up other shots. Especially Harden. That threat of a step back can make players over play him outside, which allows him to blow past them, but his strength as a scorer isn't his three point shooting. It is finishing in the lane and drawing fouls. The threat of threes helps that.

Harden, like Kobe and Jordan, used the threat of a three to set up other scoring opportunities. But Harden also takes more threes than he probably should.

Let me know how Harden's elite three point shooting translates into wins.

Only a moron would look at a league average 3-point shooter and call him elite.

NickNaylor said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

lol dude, c'mon. I'm a Mavs fan and can't stand James Harden but using Steph Curry to argue that James Harden isn't a historically great shooter is ****ing nuts. He can literally shoot the ball from anywhere on the court and your analysis doesn't take into account the difficulty of the shots (which are high).

Plus, I think you're arguing different things. Your saying James isn't the most efficient shooter (which, fine, whatever), but his ability to shoot is undeniably great. Quick release, unlimited range, and can make it anywhere around the perimeter off dribble or catch and shoot.

---

I'm not the one that brought up Curry.

Harden is an elite scorer. He's not an elite shooter. He does make shots from all over and does have a super wide variety of moves, which makes him hard to guard.

But he doesn't shoot at elite rates. He shoots at league average. That's not what you want from a guy that shoots volume threes. You let him utilize threes to make the defense keep serious on him. Maybe have some better shot selection so you waste fewer possessions, too.

---

I don't think you understand your own argument. Raw percentages taken without context are meaningless. Horace Grant converted a higher percentage on mid-range set shots than Michael Jordan did on fadeaways, but the function of each is totally different. The same goes for Harden relative to catch-and-shoot types. Just because Steve Kerr (45.4%) and Hubert Davis (44.1%) have the highest career three-point percentages doesn't mean we have to regard them as the best three-point shooters of all time. The circumstances that created those numbers has to matter, or else the numbers lose all meaning.

Harden IS an elite shooter. He'll probably finish 1 or 2 in 3pts made when his career is over.

---

He's an elite scorer. He is not an elite shooter. If he was an elite shooter, he wouldn't be league average.

Kerr is absolutely an elite shooter, but I agree a catch and shoot guy is very different than an off-the-dribble guy.

But Curry and Klay are elite off the dribble or catch and shoot. Harden is elite at creating his shot, but not necessarily at hitting 3s. Maybe with some better shot selection, he would get into that range of 37%+ that makes volume shooting better.

No one is calling Malone a better scorer than Jordan because Malone scored more points than Jordan. Harden will make a lot of threes in his career out of pure volume. No one is going to remember him as a more elite shooter than say Nash or Reggie Miller. He ain't there. And no one is going to remember Karl Malone as a better scorer than Michael Jordan, either.

---

lol ok, now i know you don't watch the NBA. Klay Thompson is literally known for scoring without dribbling. There's some crazy stat where he scored 43 points in 1 game with only like 4 total dribbles. Basically, Klay is a catch and shoot specialist (possibly the best ever), but saying he is better than Harden at the skill of shooting while ignoring the circumstances of the quality of shot is asinine.

Klay has Curry to playmake for him. Harden has no one to play make for him. In fact, Harden has the most unassisted buckets since the NBA recorded the stat.

If nothing else, there's no debating with you if you think Steve Kerr is an elite shooter for just standing at the top of the key while MJ collapses the defense around him vs Harden....I just can't help you.

You're either a hater or don't watch as much NBA as you pretend.

If you make a higher percentage of a particular shot than anyone else in history, you are by definition elite.

If you make league average of a particular shot, you are by definition not elite. So the excuse is that he takes more bad shots, which brings down his shot percentage? How to fix that.

I'm comparing Harden favorably to Jordan and Kobe, but I am a hater. Sure, pal.

NickNaylor said:

---

If you make a higher percentage of a particular shot than anyone else in history, you are by definition elite.

If you make league average of a particular shot, you are by definition not elite. So the excuse is that he takes more bad shots, which brings down his shot percentage? How to fix that.

I'm comparing Harden favorably to Jordan and Kobe, but I am a hater. Sure, pal.

---

lol so Steve Kerr is the greatest shooter of all time by your kindergarten logic. In your world, a difficult shot = a bad shot, so either difficult shots shouldn't be attempted or they shouldn't be adjusted for in any way when analyzing a player's skill level.

Yea, we're done here. Have a good one Nick.

IMO
Morey is a good GM, but not a transcendent one like he has sometimes gotten credit for.

He was part of the analytics movement, but he didn't start it. The analytics movement is what made his hiring possible.

His moves were good, but getting Chris Paul is when the Rockets seemed to go from smart roster management to just chasing every big name free agent.

The Chris Paul deal itself was tough because they paid huge money for a guard with a ton of miles on the odometer. It was an interesting gamble, but it was a gamble and it didn't really address the Rockets needs. From the outside looking in, the Westbrook deal was just a terrible idea for any team that wanted more than a bunch of regular season fireworks.

So much of being a great GM is using the draft well, because getting quality players on cheap rookie contracts is how you can afford to field good teams year after year. Tapping the free agent market for established starters gets really expensive, really fast. Morey landed a couple, but not on par with the top GMs.

I think Harden is a talented shooter but also kind of a dumb one. He's got the defender on skates most of the time and is the least guardable driver in a long time, but still settles for tons of really bad shots.

He's similar to Kobe in this respect: if I'm down 3 with two seconds on the clock, I give him the ball because the shot is going to be tough no matter what and he's as good as anyone at making tough shots. If I'm down 3 with 15 seconds to go, on average he's a liability because he's way too likely to brick a doubleteamed 35-footer while a 40% shooter is all alone in the corner trying desperately to get his attention.

How much of being a great shooter is making the shot you take, and how much is knowing whether you should take the shot at all?

M.C. Swag said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

If you make a higher percentage of a particular shot than anyone else in history, you are by definition elite.

If you make league average of a particular shot, you are by definition not elite. So the excuse is that he takes more bad shots, which brings down his shot percentage? How to fix that.

I'm comparing Harden favorably to Jordan and Kobe, but I am a hater. Sure, pal.

---

lol so Steve Kerr is the greatest shooter of all time by your kindergarten logic. In your world, a difficult shot = a bad shot, so either difficult shots shouldn't be attempted or they shouldn't be adjusted for in any way when analyzing a player's skill level.

Yea, we're done here. Have a good one Nick.

---

That's not at all what I am saying, but it is clear you can't keep a consistent discussion without resorting to weak ass **** like this.

I think most people would rank Curry over Kerr, since Curry can do more. But Kerr is an elite shooter without question, considering he made threes at a higher rate than anyone else.

No serious student of the game will ever list Harden as an all-time great 3-point shooter. Only dip****s on Texags.

Should he still shoot? Sure. It opens up his game by making people guard him further out. His game is about scoring.

4 of 12 every night is not ideal. It is not elite.

NickNaylor said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

If you make a higher percentage of a particular shot than anyone else in history, you are by definition elite.

If you make league average of a particular shot, you are by definition not elite. So the excuse is that he takes more bad shots, which brings down his shot percentage? How to fix that.

I'm comparing Harden favorably to Jordan and Kobe, but I am a hater. Sure, pal.

---

lol so Steve Kerr is the greatest shooter of all time by your kindergarten logic. In your world, a difficult shot = a bad shot, so either difficult shots shouldn't be attempted or they shouldn't be adjusted for in any way when analyzing a player's skill level.

Yea, we're done here. Have a good one Nick.

---

That's not at all what I am saying, but it is clear you can't keep a consistent discussion without resorting to weak ass **** like this.

I think most people would rank Curry over Kerr, since Curry can do more. But Kerr is an elite shooter without question, considering he made threes at a higher rate than anyone else.

No serious student of the game will ever list Harden as an all-time great 3-point shooter. Only dip****s on Texags.

Should he still shoot? Sure. It opens up his game by making people guard him further out. His game is about scoring.

4 of 12 every night is not ideal. It is not elite.

---

B/c you keep claiming analytics support your argument when you don't understand the context of those analytics.

Harden shoots 49% from catch and shoot possessions. THATS ELITE. Unfortunately he only gets 4% of his shot attempts in that situation. That's not his fault.

oNly diP****S on Texags?

Here's some literature from another dip**** that would disagree with you:
James Harden Establishes Himself as One of the Greatest Shooters Ever by ROB MAHONEY (one of the best NBA writers today)

James Harden Has Become Unguardable more recently by Rob Mahoney

The fact that he gets those "average" percentages on that much volume, while shooting about 80% of them unassisted, is honestly super impressive. Even MVP level pre-Durant Steph never took more than 55% of his 3pa unassisted.

If you're going to label Steve Kerr as an elite shooter for taking literally 1/10 of the 3pters with much much easier degree of difficulty than Harden, then it's clear who the dip**** here is.

LOL - you plagiarized that guy and passed it off as your own?

You're incredibly pathetic.

Oh you mean the perfectly Horace grant analogy? Sorry that line was too good to cite my sources on. What's pathetic is that you've made me defend James Harden through your sheer stupidity.

Too good to cite your sources? No, it is pathetic, just like you are.

Taking more difficult unassisted threes and making them at the league average rate doesn't make him elite.

Before he started shooting 8+ unassisted threes per game, he wasn't shooting them at an elite clip then, ether. When you are volume shooting more difficult shots and not making them at a high enough rate to improve your team's scoring per possession, you aren't elite. You are hurting your team and proving you are great at poor decisions and ball hogging.

If he was making them like Steph, it would be a different story. But the reason that no one else volume shoots unassisted threes like he does is because it doesn't help their team. Antoine Walker led the league in 3s made and he wasn't an elite 3-point shooter, either.

Kellso said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

Kellso said:

---

NickNaylor said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Good Poster said:

---

I will give Morey credit for two things:

1. Obvious answer is hit commitment to analytics, he changed the way teams are built in the NBA.

2. While many teams waited for the Warriors run to end, he went all in and said he is gonna try to beat them (and almost did)

But yes, he is a pretty overrated GM and probably wasted Harden's prime.

---

I completely agree with the bolded.

I'm not so sure about #1. I understand a lot of team's now shoot a ton of three pointers, but Im not sure if that is a good thing.

Earl Watson had a great interview where he stated that the analytics of taking a ton of shots doesn't quite work as well unless you have all time great shooters like the Warriors, or a James Harden.

---

Harden an all time great scorer? Sure. All-time great shooter? Not even close.

---

What is up with some of you guys on this site, and the nitpicking?? I swear some of yall act like females.

James Harden is an incredible 3 point shooter. Steph Curry might be the only player I've ever seen that can shoot 3's off the dribble better than Harden.

I don't need to look up his stats to confirm because the eye test is all I need.

Same with Luka. Some players like Luka and Harden have lower 3 point percentages than you might expect because of the sheer number of difficult 3 point shots they attempt.

My initial point remains the same. It might not be smart for a team to take a ton of three pointers if they don't have Steph Curry, James Harden or Klay Thompson.

---

We are talking about analytics use, not the eye test of know-nothing fans.

Harden hit 35,5% this year from three. He hit 55,6% from two. He scored fewer points per possession when jacking up a three than shooting a two.

The NBA average is 1.1 points per possession throughout the season for every team across the league. The worst team averaged 1.052 points per possession.

When you are a 35% three point shooter, you average 1.05 points per possession (3*.35) - so roughly equal to the worst offensive team in the league. A guy like Steph Curry averages 1.31 points per possession on his career 43,5% shooting. A 37,0% shooter gets 1.11 points per possession, so that should be the minimum level for volume shooting. Harden has been below that mark each of the last 5 years and has only been above it twice.

As a team, Houston shot just 34,5% from three, or 1.035 points per possession.

The eye test doesn't mean much when talking about the analytics of basketball.

---

Oh look.... it's an analytics nerd that most likely never played basketball past the 6th grade that thinks he knows everything about hoops.

Only a moron would state that James Harden is not an elite 3 point shooter. and I try not to name call on this site.

---

That "moron" made your Harden take look juvenile.

Guitarsoup said:

---

---

So Presti managed to lose Harden, Durant, George, Westbrook, and CP3, never won a ring, but got some lesser players and a bunch of lottery scratch-off tickets in the process. Congrats?

He doesn't have a lot of power when Durant wants to leave his team to chase a ring just like Morey didn't have a lot of power over Yao Ming breaking his feet. He has done an outstanding job drafting and acquiring assets for players that wanted to leave.

He has unquestionably done a better job at turning players into better assets. Prime example is Houston trading a ton of draft picks with Chris Paul in exchange for Westbrook, who had an even worse contract than Paul.

Then flipping Paul for two starters and a 1st rounder.

So they took an unhappy, overpaid, low-efficiency player, flipped him into seven first round draft picks and moving up in this year's draft.

Now ask Rocket fans if they would trade Russ Westbrook for 7 first round picks plus the #17 pick in this draft. I think they would all jump on that in a heartbeat, because Russ sure isn't leading that team to the finals.

Guitarsoup said:

---

He doesn't have a lot of power when Durant wants to leave his team to chase a ring just like Morey didn't have a lot of power over Yao Ming breaking his feet. He has done an outstanding job drafting and acquiring assets for players that wanted to leave.

He has unquestionably done a better job at turning players into better assets. Prime example is Houston trading a ton of draft picks with Chris Paul in exchange for Westbrook, who had an even worse contract than Paul.

Then flipping Paul for two starters and a 1st rounder.

So they took an unhappy, overpaid, low-efficiency player, flipped him into seven first round draft picks and moving up in this year's draft.

Now ask Rocket fans if they would trade Russ Westbrook for 7 first round picks plus the #17 pick in this draft. I think they would all jump on that in a heartbeat, because Russ sure isn't leading that team to the finals.

---

He had 3 future MVPs (and like HoFs) on the same team and blew it up before he really had to. They've been on a slow descent ever since. He also choose the inefficient Westbrook over Harden and gave Westbrook the contract you criticize. That Harden trade also is a big factor into why Durant left.

So no, he absolutely did not turn players into better assets unless you leave out the whole reason why he had to start flipping players. He was brilliant in getting 3 of the best players in the league, then never won anything with it. Yes, he has stockpiled "assets" now, but only because he mismanaged the dream scenario he had.

All that said, I think Presti is a very good GM. But the difference between him and Morey isn't all that great. Morey was very good at keeping roster flexibility and flipping assets for much of his tenure. Those moves are what put him in the position to get Dwight Howard and CP3. Those moves didn't work out, to say the least.

Now the situation Morey left behind is honestly not very good after he started swinging for the fences. But the Rockets still had a ton of success under Morey, and much of it was at Presti's expense.

Morey left behind a burning dumpster fire. Team has two more first rounders, then the rest are tied up for the following five years. I don't think a lot of teams want Russ' giant ass contract and inefficient style.

Presti was forced by the owners to trade Harden, because of the luxury tax. With Durant+Russ+Ibaka, they couldn't give Harden the contract that he was worth, so they traded him. Obviously, that was a terrible move, but it was an ownership choice from a small market team that doesn't have the financial flexibility. Thunder could only offer 4y55mm, Rockets gave him 5y/78mm. Harden has even said in interviews that he left OKC solely for financial reasons. Don't think that is on Presti.

That was the beginning of the end. Durant left to go to the team that beat him in the playoffs and was already stacked with great players.

He didn't mismanage the situation, the ownership did.

Quote:

---

Now the situation Morey left behind is honestly not very good after he started swinging for the fences. But the Rockets still had a ton of success under Morey, and much of it was at Presti's expense.

---

Presti's teams did better than Moreys. Both were hired a month apart.

Presti:
1 NBA Finals
3 Conference Finals
3 Missed Playoffs

Morey:
0 NBA Finals
2 Conference Finals
3 Missed Playoffs

Quote:

---

Those moves are what put him in the position to get Dwight Howard and CP3. Those moves didn't work out, to say the least.

---

Talent evaluation and getting guys that will work chemistry-wise is Morey's big negative.

Yep, I agree. Morey left a giant mess. The Westbrook trade in particular was a disaster. It made moving Capela a necessity, and now the Rockets have no youth or assets.

But praising Presti while criticizing Morey doesn't make much sense to me. Their resumes are similar, and Morey absolutely fleeced him for Harden. That trade is ultimately what unraveled everything for Presti, and he didn't probably need to make the trade when he did either. He could've traded Westbrook or Ibaka or gotten a better return too.

Now OKC is rebuilding and the Rockets probably aren't far behind. Both GMs did a lot of good and also made mistakes that led them to where they are now.

I'd take Presti for the Rockets' rebuild in a heartbeat though.

Ryan34 said:

---

But praising Presti while criticizing Morey doesn't make much sense to me. Their resumes are similar

---

Similar, but Presti's is clearly better. Further, Presti's team has more assets to work with and no millstone contracts weighing the team down. So criticizing Morey for doing a lesser job seems applicable. OKC is in a better position to rebuild over the next few years than Houston.

Quote:

---

Morey absolutely fleeced him for Harden. That trade is ultimately what unraveled everything for Presti, and he didn't probably need to make the trade when he did either.

---

Yeah, Morey won that. But Presti absolutely fleeced Morey on the Westbrook/Paul/5 first rounder trade. And as far as I know, Tillman wasn't forcing Morey to take on an extra 48mm in guaranteed money and give away five years worth of draft picks. I'm more willing to give some what of a pass for an owner-forced trade.

The Harden Trade was Harden and a couple of stiffs for:
Kevin Martin
Jeremy Lamb (was just the 12th pick and had not played yet)
1st round pick (Steven Adams)
1st round pick (they blew it drafting Mitch McGary over Capela, Bogdan, Jokic, Dinwiddie, and Jeremi Grant.)

Perfect hindsight drafting and they could have drafted Giannis with the Steven Adams pick and Jokic with the McGary pick. Harden fro Martin, Lamb, Giannis, and Jokic would have been pretty great. But perfect hindsight. They had the assets to make that into a great trade. And overall, getting

Quote:

---

He could've traded Westbrook or Ibaka or gotten a better return too.

---

Sure. But Westbrook was already proven and obviously no one knew if Harden could carry a team like he did. And with two PGs, a SF and a PF, they aren't going to trade the PF that just led the NBA with 3.7BPG. We weren't into the 4-guard league yet.

Quote:

---

Now OKC is rebuilding and the Rockets probably aren't far behind. Both GMs did a lot of good and also made mistakes that led them to where they are now.

I'd take Presti for the Rockets' rebuild in a heartbeat though.

---

Which is why Presti did a better job preparing them. I think Presti made fewer mistakes and a did a better job putting players together.