Official NBA Discussion Thread

[BHK1978]

I also hate Cavs fans. They're nothing but band wagon fans. No one cares about basketball around here unless they're doing good. At least Browns fans are loyal no matter how they're doing.

 

I never really got this line of thinking when it comes to fans. The same thing happens here as well, the fans are loyal to the Red Sox no matter how good or bad they are doing.

 

However, if the Celtics, Patriots, or Bruins suck for an extended period of time nobody gives a crap about them. The one that really bothers me is Patriots fans because they are the least loyal of the lot. Before Bledsoe and Parcells got there nobody gave a crap about the team. The minute they started winning they all of a sudden had all of these loyal diehard fans.

 

Funny when they were 1-15 none of these diehard fans went to any games. I guess it is easy to be a diehard fan when the team is winning.

 

What I do not get is all of these people are from the same fan base. The same people who stick by the Red Sox no matter what are the same people who will only cheer on the other Boston area team if they are winning.

 

Back onto the topic, I did not bother to watch the Finals last night. I did not want to see him win a championship. I actually have no problems with him joining the Heat and making a super team (After all I am a Yankees fan so I could hardly begrudge a group of superstars coming together on one team.), what turned me against LeBron was the whole decision thing.

[Astil]

What a great night, can't wait until next year.

 

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/FkIn1F1AbHJgKAYNWZn5dQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNjM7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-06-22T040427Z_307195305_TB3E86M0BB6OE_RTRMADP_3_NBA.JPG

[Unregistered]

I never really got this line of thinking when it comes to fans. The same thing happens here as well, the fans are loyal to the Red Sox no matter how good or bad they are doing.

 

However, if the Celtics, Patriots, or Bruins suck for an extended period of time nobody gives a crap about them. The one that really bothers me is Patriots fans because they are the least loyal of the lot. Before Bledsoe and Parcells got there nobody gave a crap about the team. The minute they started winning they all of a sudden had all of these loyal diehard fans.

 

Funny when they were 1-15 none of these diehard fans went to any games. I guess it is easy to be a diehard fan when the team is winning.

 

What I do not get is all of these people are from the same fan base. The same people who stick by the Red Sox no matter what are the same people who will only cheer on the other Boston area team if they are winning.

 

Back onto the topic, I did not bother to watch the Finals last night. I did not want to see him win a championship. I actually have no problems with him joining the Heat and making a super team (After all I am a Yankees fan so I could hardly begrudge a group of superstars coming together on one team.), what turned me against LeBron was the whole decision thing.

 

I miss it when the Celtics we're bad. The tickets were just so easy to come by! That, and I miss the guys we had just before the big three. Gerald Green, Mike James, Scal, Delonte West... They may not have been the best, but they we're really entertaining!

 

Then again.. I might be the odd one out on this occasion.

 

On LeBron: Although my opinion doesn't account for much, he really impressed me this off season. He did very well. He finally founds his groove, and people took notice. He's not a 3-Point shooter, and he doesn't need to be. He's a power guard. Or whatever they want to call it. I wanted any other team to win but Miami, but in the end I'm happy he won it. He deserved it.

[Remianen]

Lebron s*** all over Cleveland...

 

The Thunder walked out of Seattle...

 

Umm, this isn't correct.

 

The Sonics were just about BANKRUPT and the only two people interested in buying the team were Paul Allen (who couldn't, because he already owned the Blazers) and the OKC ownership group. Allen was trying to get Steve Ballmer and/or Bill Gates interested in either buying the Sonics or letting him buy the Sonics by buying the Blazers but neither was interested in being a sports owner. The OKC ownership group said flat out, if we don't get a new arena in Seattle, we're taking the team home to OKC where we already have an agreement for an arena. I'm sure if it were your money, you'd keep the team in Seattle and suffer being a small market team in an old, decrepit arena while other teams are making money hand over fist in their new or heavily renovated venues. Of course, if that's the case, then the team would end up right back where it was before: bankrupt. If you've ever been to a game in a modern arena, just look around and see how much money they generate. 'The Cathedral of Baseball' (Yankee Stadium) cost 1.5 billion to build and has paid for itself already and it's only three years old. Basketball arenas don't cost nearly as much.

 

I can understand blind fan sentiment but it doesn't make sense when you shine a light on it. Small market teams need blood from turnips to even create the illusion of being competitive with the New Yorks, LAs, Atlantas, Chicagos, etc of the sports world.

 

Yes, LeBron listened to the wrong people and went through with that decision crap and ultimately went to the wrong team (his Q rating wouldn't have taken as much of a beating if he had gone to New York). His marketability isn't what it once was, but it'll recover eventually. But he clearly showed the problem of being a superstar and playing for your home team. If you leave, you're persona non grata and absolutely despised by the forlorn people who forget they hadn't gotten within visual range of the Finals before you started playing for them. Brad Daugherty, Mark Price, and Craig Ehlo were great guys...but they never got it done. LeBron comes along and takes the cast of M*A*S*H and carries them to the Finals. But people wail at him because he left for a team that is serious about chasing championships instead of staying in Dan Gilbert's 'we want to win....unless it costs us money' domain.

[lazorbeak]

Wow, Remi must live in some parallel earth where the move to OKC was perfectly justified. If the team was nearly bankrupt, it had more to do with the previous ownerships corporate culture turning a team with a history of being very good into an incredibly mediocre franchise in under a decade. The poor Sonics had suffered the indignity of playing in a stadium revamped in the distant memory of 1995, back before Sean Kemp became a fat joke punchline. Then, after an insulting demand for a new stadium was rejected in 2006 (insulting because it was just before the Seahawks appeared in the Super Bowl), Schultz and the Sonics management sold the team to new owners who promised in good faith they wouldn't immediately try to Shanghai the team. And then, after an even more egregious request for city taxpayers to pay for a 500 million dollar monstrosity, the OKC ownership tried to weasel out of existing obligations (and lost in a suit over the Key Arena lease) and jump ship to OKC and an arena the city built that had somehow cost less than 20% of what they were asking from Seattle. Yeah, only a "blind fan" could find fault with these multi-millionaires course of action. And I wonder if in this parallel earth, OKC isn't an extremely small market that has just gone to the NBA finals, despite the fact that it's apparently impossible to compete from a small market. It'd be something again if we were talking about baseball, where that's pretty much the truth, but the NBA salary structure encourages parity and discourages dumb spending (see: the New York Knicks and the checks they've written to Eddy Curry, Allan Houston, and Nate Robinson, among others).

 

And as much as Dan Gilbert's a moron, the idea that the Cavs lost because he refused to spend money is preposterous. In 2008-2009 the team won almost 20 more games, trading for Ben Wallace and Mo Williams and finishing with 66 wins, while going far over the existing salary cap. Granted the team was also paying for a big contract for role player Wally Sczcerbiak, but that team could've easily won a championship with better coaching the next season. Instead, they blew up that team and brought in Shaq and Antawn Jamison, sending them even further over the salary cap and sabotaging their team chemistry. It's definitely not that he refused to spend money, it's that the team couldn't figure out what it needed (defense and rebounding in the post, spot shooters who could play perimeter D on the wing), and made the wrong move, not that they did nothing. I mean it's not like Dan Gilbert is Donald Sterling, a guy with a seeming commitment to losing while he wastes away in the tiny market that is Los Angeles.

[JackKnifed72]

You may be right about the Sonics/Thunder situation, I'm no expert on how that went down, although what little I've read it looks more like an Art Modell - Baltimore situation rather than the Sonics being doomed if they didn't leave (Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had $150 million on the table to try and renovate the Key Arena but the OKC ownership chose to settle the lawsuit the city of Seattle had filed by paying $75 million to get out of their lease early and bolt to Oklahoma City), however from living in Seattle for several years (late 90's) I can say for a fact that Seattle is a much, much larger market than OKC, the Seattle Metro area is 3x the size of OKC...we will see how it plays out down the line...

 

The fact that LeBron left Cleveland doesn't bother me...the fact that he was a pompous a** about it does

[Jaysin]

The fact that LeBron left Cleveland doesn't bother me...the fact that he was a pompous a** about it does

 

He's been a pompous ass since high school.

[Tha Black Phenom]

The only reason I wanted the Thunder to win was because Kevin Durant is such a young and humble player, for the time he's been in the league whenever he drops 40+ point games, post-interview, 3/4th of the time he'll credit his teammates for pulling through and getting the win. Really gracious and the entire team itself is young as well, that said I don't hate LeBron or the Heat and I think it's pretty awesome for James to win his first this way. (triple double)

 

Honestly it shows how one game can make all the difference. By which I mean game 5, the Heat were nailing everything, from downtown too. 14 3-pt fg in a finals game is insane. Thunder just got the short end of the stick there, although they weren't playing like they usually did.

 

To think how different things could have been if D. Rose wasn't injured.

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Wow, Remi must live in some parallel earth where the move to OKC was perfectly justified. If the team was nearly bankrupt, it had more to do with the previous ownerships corporate culture turning a team with a history of being very good into an incredibly mediocre franchise in under a decade. The poor Sonics had suffered the indignity of playing in a stadium revamped in the distant memory of 1995, back before Sean Kemp became a fat joke punchline. Then, after an insulting demand for a new stadium was rejected in 2006 (insulting because it was just before the Seahawks appeared in the Super Bowl), Schultz and the Sonics management sold the team to new owners who promised in good faith they wouldn't immediately try to Shanghai the team. And then, after an even more egregious request for city taxpayers to pay for a 500 million dollar monstrosity, the OKC ownership tried to weasel out of existing obligations (and lost in a suit over the Key Arena lease) and jump ship to OKC and an arena the city built that had somehow cost less than 20% of what they were asking from Seattle. Yeah, only a "blind fan" could find fault with these multi-millionaires course of action. And I wonder if in this parallel earth, OKC isn't an extremely small market that has just gone to the NBA finals, despite the fact that it's apparently impossible to compete from a small market. It'd be something again if we were talking about baseball, where that's pretty much the truth, but the NBA salary structure encourages parity and discourages dumb spending (see: the New York Knicks and the checks they've written to Eddy Curry, Allan Houston, and Nate Robinson, among others).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Hello? That's called 'modern day sports'. What you detail has occurred several times, in several different sports. The Key Arena "upgrades" did not bring it on par with even Paul Allen's Rose Garden. "Good faith" means we will both work to make the situation better. If that better situation means shelling out half a billion, you nut up or you shut up. I have zero sympathy for cities that want to keep professional sports franchises but don't want to deal with the cost of doing so. Then again, I'm from New York where one of our latest arenas paid itself off in less than 3 years. The move was justified, in my view, when you compare the receptions of the cities in question. OKC planned (and has taken steps) to make the Thunder the centerpiece of their downtown development efforts. Very much like Denver did years ago with the LoDo development )(Pepsi Center, Coors Field, INVESCO). Seattle wasn't willing (or perhaps, able) to pay the cost to keep their team. Lemme ask you, what did Milwaukee do when the Brewers asked for a new venue? Is that not a small market?</p><p> </p><p> Sorry, zero sympathy for cities who want to be big dogs but don't want to deal with the costs involved with doing so (modern airports, modern arenas, modern facilities, developed downtowns, etc). In the last 20 years, Denver (which is not a top-5 city) has spent close to $20 billion developing itself into a major market. No excuses. Say 'aye' or say goodbye.</p><p> </p><p> The Sonics fled to Oklahoma City, where they are the only (pro) game in town. They built a team in the only way a small market team can hope to be successful at: organically. They added some relatively inexpensive acquisitions and free agents and grew the team into a contender. They locked up their franchise player to a deal that is very favorable to the team (and the player, at the time it was signed). OKC, to date, has been a model on how to survive and thrive as a small market team (second to only the Green Bay Packers). However, the presence of the Pack and the Thunder do not mean that small market teams can be competitive. It only proves that well run small market teams can. As long as the Royals and their ilk exist, the Pack and Thunder will be exceptions, not the rule.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And as much as Dan Gilbert's a moron, the idea that the Cavs lost because he refused to spend money is preposterous. In 2008-2009 the team won almost 20 more games, trading for Ben Wallace and Mo Williams and finishing with 66 wins, while going far over the existing salary cap. Granted the team was also paying for a big contract for role player Wally Sczcerbiak, but that team could've easily won a championship with better coaching the next season. Instead, they blew up that team and brought in Shaq and Antawn Jamison, sending them even further over the salary cap and sabotaging their team chemistry. It's definitely not that he refused to spend money, it's that the team couldn't figure out what it needed (defense and rebounding in the post, spot shooters who could play perimeter D on the wing), and made the wrong move, not that they did nothing. I mean it's not like Dan Gilbert is Donald Sterling, a guy with a seeming commitment to losing while he wastes away in the tiny market that is Los Angeles.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You are correct, I misspoke. Dan Gilbert's problem is, he hires the wrong people (wasn't Donnie Walsh right under his nose?) and they basically make the wrong moves. But the one thing I'm wondering, given the contentious CBA negotiations last year.</p><p> </p><p> Wasn't the new CBA suppose to prevent things like the former Dwight Howard trade and the Steve Nash trade from occurring? Rich getting richer, with the "poor" having to divest themselves of their best talent? There were several teams willfully trying to steer clear of the Howard trade, citing competitive balance and the new CBA not appearing to work. Now that it's been proven that you can win a title with only three bonafide stars (though I thought the Celtics had already proven that and the Spurs and arguably, Michael Jordan's Bulls before them? Why is everyone acting like the Heat are a unique snowflake?), it seems the major teams are looking to assemble starpower. This seems to be what the CBA was supposedly designed to prevent. Or are these GMs who said that (off the record of course. Don't wanna get fined or anything!) delusional?</p>

[GatorBait19]

Okay can someone please explain the love affair with Walsh?

 

1) Selection of Reggie Miller

2) Signing of Amare to a max contract which he was going to get and Amare pretty much was a gaurntee to sign with the Knicks

3) traded for Melo... when melo only wanted the Knicks

 

A team he put together in the Knicks hasnt done jack and that team truely has his stamp of approval on it. Peoples love affair for him with the Pacers doesnt make sense either since Larry Bird seems to be the only time that team succeeds.

 

So I just want what the greatness for a man who's team lost in 6?

[BHK1978]

So if the Dwight Howard trade goes through (Which it looks like it probably will.) what is the over/under on Phillip all of a sudden coming back to coach the Lakers? I would say pretty good because he only coaches when he knows he can win a championship.

[matthew222]

I say the lakers now have a chance for a championship

 

Nash will be the best PG for them since Fisher in his younger days but the guy can't play defense

 

Kobe is Kobe and will still think he is the best at everything

 

Dwight just turned them into 2nd Round Losers into maybe Champions if they can beat the Thunder(Which I'm doubtfull about)

[lazorbeak]

I say the lakers now have a chance for a championship

 

Nash will be the best PG for them since Fisher in his younger days but the guy can't play defense

 

Kobe is Kobe and will still think he is the best at everything

 

Dwight just turned them into 2nd Round Losers into maybe Champions if they can beat the Thunder(Which I'm doubtfull about)

 

Pretty bold prediction.

 

Seriously it's not even fair that the Lakers were able to assemble a team like this so quickly after the lockout. I mean they had to dump Odom to deal with luxury cap issues, but their starting lineup next year is likely to consist of FIVE former all-stars. Granted, MWP is far from all-star form and Steve Nash is old enough to have grandchildren, but this is still ridiculous.

 

Nash won't even have to try to stop people from driving off the dribble; all he has to do is put a hand in the face of three point shooters. It also makes the Lakers effectively double-team proof. Nash is a huge perimeter shooting upgrade, and is also still a top 3 passer. Not only will he make Howard and Gasol's lives easier, he pretty much guarantees that Kobe will have to be guarded one on one no matter what.

 

If the team chemistry comes together, there's no question but that they're the favorites to get back to the finals. I mean Kendrick Perkins would be slaughtered by Howard even before you factor in Steve Nash running the offense.

[Tha Black Phenom]

What annoys me is how certain people think going from Bynum to Howard is some sort of substantial upgrade. Yeah, he's better than Bynum but by how much - Howard pretty much has the superstar status as a center while Bynum has been improving in strides. Not even looking at his numbers but how he finally made it to starting all-star center last season.

 

It's just weird seeing certain people talk doo-doo about the Lakers when the line was crossed as soon as Nash inked the deal.

[lazorbeak]

What annoys me is how certain people think going from Bynum to Howard is some sort of substantial upgrade. Yeah, he's better than Bynum but by how much - Howard pretty much has the superstar status as a center while Bynum has been improving in strides. Not even looking at his numbers but how he finally made it to starting all-star center last season.

 

It's just weird seeing certain people talk doo-doo about the Lakers when the line was crossed as soon as Nash inked the deal.

 

Except it is a substantial upgrade. Bynum had the best year of his career last year, averaging 19 points, 12 boards, almost 2 blocks, half a steal, and shot 56%. Howard had a down year and still posted 20 points, 14.5 boards, over 2 blocks, and 1.5 steals a game while shooting 57%. That's better in every category, but it ignores the fact that Howard is slightly smaller and significantly more athletic. Unlike Bynum, Howard runs the floor well and is a far better help defender. He's also the single best pick and roll big man in the game as of last season, and he's now teaming up with one of the best point guards in the league. When you look at teams that have beaten the Lakers the past two seasons, the problem was a lack of athleticism, especially on defense, when it came to matching up with guys off the dribble. Bynum was horrendous in that Mavs series two years ago at guarding guys off the pick and roll because he was just too big and slow to step out.

 

But even if all of that isn't convincing, the biggest factor is that Bynum had his first injury free season since he was 19 last year (in part due to the fact that his weight puts a big strain on his feet and knees). He's missed 28, 17, 32, and 47 games in the preceding 4 years. Even including this year, where he was healthy, he's averaging missing 1/3 of every season over the past 5 years. By comparison, Dwight's missed 19 games over the past 5 seasons, and twelve of those came this year.

 

As good as a motivated Bynum could be at times (witness his 10 block, 13 rebound game against the Nuggets), he also has a bad habit of taking plays and sometimes entire games off; not hustling down the court, not playing help defense, generally making his team's defense worse. You never know when you'll get "mopey" Bynum, who had 4 rebounds, 10 points, and no blocks in 35 minutes that the Lakers got in game 5 against the Thunder.

 

That the Lakers, already a top 3 team in the west just with Nash and their existing team, make a trade where they improve in every way and lose nothing, just doesn't seem fair. But as a fan, I'm still excited to watch Nash run a championship caliber offense after the past few years of him carrying a bunch of scrubs in Phoenix.

[Tha Black Phenom]

You mentioned his injuries and that's pretty much what I meant. Most of Bynum's early upcoming was considerably seeded with injuries which can halt a man's game down, let alone a big man. One more and he would've probably been in the same vein as Greg Oden. His first season injury free and he's been hitting the mark, not to mention his working on several lacking aspects of his game during the lock-out - if he kept the momentum up through the offseason and beyond, there's no telling where it would've led him in the long run(plus I'd also bank on him making FTs) - now of course Howard is still better, considerably even but at the end of the day, all the Lakers needed was a PG. Even with Bynum making headway, they'd be in position to break the ceiling, or just go far. Or maybe I'm also saying this cause I saw Gasol has been the one losing steam anyway. But either way, my hopes are up and yeah this seems quite lopsided.

[matthew222]

I love Bynum and think he could be a future big time player and he did improve and seemed like he grew up a little bit but I have one problem..

 

Why didn't they just trade Pau? He is a good big man but I have never liked him, always seemed way to soft but I'll see what happens with Nash

 

I would of been happy with either trade the Lakers could of made

[lazorbeak]

I love Bynum and think he could be a future big time player and he did improve and seemed like he grew up a little bit but I have one problem..

 

Why didn't they just trade Pau? He is a good big man but I have never liked him, always seemed way to soft but I'll see what happens with Nash

 

I would of been happy with either trade the Lakers could of made

 

At the end of the day, they didn't trade Pau because nobody involved in the trade needed him to be involved as a potential deal-breaker. Bynum right now is the more valuable piece, even though his health and head are question marks, because he's still getting better, so there was no question he was getting traded, especially since Howard is a more natural replacement for Bynum. On the other hand, Pau's 32 and his numbers have been down for two seasons, so nobody was super excited about him being the #1 piece somewhere (even though Houston tried for him last year). The Lakers probably would've thrown him in if they had to, but since they didn't have to, they get to keep one of the top 4's in the league.

[Killagy]

Glad I have the day off! Anybody got their hands on 2K13 yet? Just came back from GameStop and going to dive straight into My Player/Career mode. This year apparently 2k made it possible for you to be selected #1 in the draft!

[Killagy]

I just had a HEART ATTACK! O.O

 

WHAT. THE. ****!!!!??

 

The Thunder traded away James Harden, Cole Aldridge, Lazar Hayward and Daequan Cook for the Rockets' Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, and a couple future draft picks.

 

Am I seriously the only one who thinks Houston won this trade? Am I?

 

WTF?!?

 

Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--thunder-trade-james-harden-to-rockets-27481909.html

[bookerman]

10/28/12- yes, houston came out ahead. However, OKC having 4 max/near max guys would have hamstrung their budget/team for years. Also, people seem to think a guy like Lamb (D's and 3's) is a better fit opposite KD and Westbrook. Not a better talent than Harden, but his skills compliment those guys better.

 

Athletically, OKC could run out Westbrook/Lamb/PJ3/KD/Ibaka for a few minutes and cause a lot of problems for teams.

 

Houston can also still sign a max player next summer. Not that Howard would go there, but they are attractive to any forward/big man with Lin/Harden in the backcourt.

[lazorbeak]

Bizarre move for the Thunder. They might not be losing much, especially with Maynor back to give help to the second unit at point, but on the Thunder K-Mart is a spot shooter, most likely backing up 'Losha, and being paid over $12 million this year for the privilege. He'll still spread the court and is a good #3 scoring threat, but he plays no defense and his lack of athleticism is going to get worse as he's not getting any younger. Lamb could develop into a good spot shooter too, but he's probably too under-sized to do much other than get limited minutes.

 

I'm not sure I understand why the Thunder pulled the trigger on this so quickly though. They were probably considered the #3 and possibly the #2 team when it came to winning a title, and Harden's contract situation would only start being a headache next year. Sure he'd be a RFA and would probably get a max offer sheet from Houston or another team under the cap, but the Thunder could just match that and trade him for the most value, after competing for a championship. Instead, it seems like they're resigned to be a good but not great team with the potential of getting better with some extra first round picks. That is, unless Westbrook becomes a truly elite PG and Durant develops his low post scoring, in which case they could compete for a title even without Harden.

[soxfan93]

Great move for both sides. Jeremy Lamb is a terrific young player, and they got two first round picks (Toronto's is a guaranteed lottery pick), and Kevin Martin will be a lot better as the third option than he was carrying the load offensively for Houston. I see Martin filling in perfectly, or at least giving them 85-90% of the productivity, which is more than enough, with the other solid role players they've picked up.

 

Houston obviously got a great two guard in James Harden, who will sign a maximum 4-year, $60M deal before Wednesday's deadline. He will pair nicely with Jeremy Lin.

[BHK1978]

So if the Dwight Howard trade goes through (Which it looks like it probably will.) what is the over/under on Phillip all of a sudden coming back to coach the Lakers? I would say pretty good because he only coaches when he knows he can win a championship.

 

This was just a joke post but it looks like Mercenary Phil might just prove me right. Yes I know they are a 2-4 team but that is not going to last, they are a deep playoff team and if Phil thinks he can win another championship he will come out of retirement.

[3rdStringPG]

Bumping this up!

 

As we all know, the Lakers replaced one Mike (Brown) with another (D'Antoni)...not exactly what I was hoping for as a lifelong Lakers fan, but at least he's got some background with Steve Nash. And I'm confident he can undo most, if not all of the bad chemistry generated by the Mike Brown debacle.

 

K-Mart isn't exactly finished but it won't be a few seasons before Jeremy Lamb takes over as the Thunder's starting SG. And yes, Harden is proving to be the real deal for the Rockets. He's a lock for Most Improved Player, IMHO.