This article puts the Harden vs Kanter situation into context fairly well.
http://espn.go.com/blog/okc-thunder/pos ... 70-millionBut, to the giant beard in the room: Why would the Thunder pay a max deal to Enes Kanter and not one to James Harden three years ago? It's a reasonable question to ask, but one that requires a lot more context to explain.
First, the NBA in 2012 was much different than it is in 2015. That was four offseasons ago. There was no $70 million salary cap. In 2012, it was $58 million. Just compare the contracts handed out in that free agency period to the ones in this one. There's a reason for that. And projections have the cap soaring to possibly as much as $100 million, or more, in 2017. Nobody knew that was happening when the Thunder were negotiating with Harden.
Second, the Thunder have always been operating within a specific plan, doing their best to stick to their defined "core values." Those include resisting the urge to overspend and compromise the future before the core members of the roster -- Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka -- reach the primes of their careers. The reason for that is following the new collective bargaining agreement that not only included a more punitive luxury tax, but an extremely threatening addendum to that called the "repeater tax." The Thunder didn't want to spend what was in the coffers before they needed to re-sign Durant in 2016, and Westbrook and Ibaka in 2017. You can look at the profits of the franchise from the last few years -- and they've been impressive, no doubt -- but those would be wiped out in two or three short seasons of paying the nasty repeater tax.
It's not that the Thunder are unique to it, either. Every team in the league is terrified of the repeater tax, even the big-market teams such as the Lakers, Nets, Bulls and Knicks, who are all maneuvering to avoid it. Nobody wants to pay that thing. Especially one that has to be as financially conscious as the Thunder.
They were, however, willing to deviate from those core values with Harden to a degree in offering him an extension totaling to close to $55 million ($5 million short of a max), which would have sent the Thunder well into the luxury tax. That extra $5 million in breathing room, though, was going to help in enabling them the following summer to get under the tax line -- likely by exercising its amnesty clause on Kendrick Perkins -- and reduce their chances of being a repeat tax offender three out of four years by the time 2016 rolled around. Instead, with Harden desperately wanting to leave anyway, the Thunder made their offer and held their ground.
So essentially, the Thunder gambled on differing title windows. They had a four-year look in re-signing Harden before they would've almost assuredly been forced to trade either Harden, Westbrook or Ibaka (again, keep in mind they didn't know in 2012 the cap was going to spike). Or they could try to maintain a championship-level contender built around three really good players -- which they did. Remember, they were in the Western Conference finals two years ago, and are propping open another title window starting this season as they become a tax team. Which again conveniently aligns with Durant's free agency next summer, when he could re-sign for a max deal taking up 30 percent of the Thunder's salary cap.
It's a completely fair discussion to have if the Thunder picked the right window to make their move. Considering they haven't cashed in and won a championship yet, maybe not. But they also haven't been far off, and if not for a few untimely injuries, they might have pulled it off already. And now, the Thunder will have their deepest, most potent roster ever next season, with potentially 12 capable rotation players, all set up to be retained for the long-term. Durant's gotta like that.
What's not fair is comparing Kanter's max to the one the Thunder didn't give Harden. The Thunder have been planning for these seasons all along, trying to make sure their financial ducks were in a row to align with the primes of Durant and Westbrook. Their four-year window with Harden would've been starting with a core of 23-year-olds. Durant and Westbrook will both turn 27 this fall. History says that's when players start winning titles.
The Thunder paid a small snippet of the tax last season, putting one year on the tally. Two more in the next three years, and they're heading for the dreaded repeater. Re-signing Kanter virtually guarantees Year 2 of it. And if everything goes according to plan and Durant re-signs, it will require some salary cap gymnastics to get under it before Westbrook is due for his new contract in 2017. But it's going to be possible to do, because again, the salary cap is going to go bonkers.
So this is the important takeaway: Had the Thunder gone all-in in 2012, instead of adding pieces now, they would be looking to begin a tear down, which isn't what you want to be doing when you've got to re-sign Durant. That's why Kanter's max today isn't comparable to the one the Thunder wouldn't give Harden in 2012. It wasn't just four offseasons ago, it was four salary caps ago, too. That was then, this is now.
I'd argue they made a series of good financial decisions to keep cap flexibility (with one eye on re-signing Durant and Westbrook again). Plus, they have a more versatile and deeper roster now, especially in the frontcourt.
