You keep implying that Westbrook was offered more than what he signed for which simply isn't true. Westbrook signed for the absolute max he could have at the time and there is no indication that the Thunder were ever going to include the Rose provision in his contract. The Thunder could have easily told him they would let him become a RFA and match a deal that would be worth 20million less than what they were offering if he didn't sign(no way he signs a QO). Also if Westbrook is so selfless and waiving the player option is such a huge sign of commitment to the team how come he didn't waive his player option.
I don't think it's at all a sure thing that Ibaka gets as much as Hibbert, the possibility is there as is the possibility for injury or lack of development in his game. He could have gambled and potentially received a max offer but he wasn't anywhere near being in the same boat as Harden who would have had teams lining up to pay him the max.
If Harden signs for 20million more in guaranteed money than what he was asking from the Thunder as is expected will you not concede that he was willing to make concessions based on their situation?
Westbrook would have gotten the Rose deal. You don't have to believe me but again that came from someone who works with Westbrook's dad. He knew that deal was going to be on the table if he qualified for it, but he chose to take the max deal.
Here's a breakdown pretty well done that shows the impact to OKC's cap just for signing Harden at 53 million.
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2012/10/31/oklahoma-city-thunder-what-if-james-harden-had-signed/
Note, by the 2nd year of his new deal they'd be over 20 million a year in luxury tax. Note the impact year over year as more and more money tied up into less and less players. And that's at 53, not at the max that Harden was insisting on. If he gets that they're over 30 million in luxury tax very quickly.
If you're one of the top X players in the league you are probably going to get a max deal, Durant and Westbrook certainly didn't play hardball one waived the option, the other gave up the chance to get an extra 3 million a year.
Bill Simmons wrote a piece where he talks about Harden sacrificing shots and minutes to make things work and how they then wanted him to sacrifice money too. Again, he was helping the team win games, that's supposed to be the goal not how many shots you get up or minutes played. But when it came time to do that again, he chose the money and being the man.
Not saying that makes him evil, but that's what he did, he chose to pursue more money and being the main guy over being on a team that would be contending for the finals for the next several years.
We'll see how it works out for OKC, it's not clear the Lakers are actually going to be great, maybe OKC gets it to work, maybe they don't. But if they start forking over 30 million a year in luxury tax because Harden wanted 4-5 million more total, that's not how you run an NBA franchise.
Last year before the season started it was reported that under the new deal, the Lakers payroll would be 90 million when it kicks in, and it would cost them 140 million because of the CBA and the luxury tax. If you look at OKC's roster and play out the math as in that link, they would get getting close to that themselves towards the end of Harden's deal.
