Debunking the Criticism of the Enes Kanter Deal
By now you’ve probably heard the news that Enes Kanter will be staying in Oklahoma City as the team matched the Portland Trailblazers offer of $70 million over four years.
Most people seem to believe that Kanter isn’t worth that kind of money and it’s tough for me to disagree with that sentiment. The team was universally praised when they acquired him at the deadline, but money changes opinions. That said, I’m not the one who has to pay him that money and neither are you. Unless Clay Bennett is reading this, in which case, can I borrow a dollar?
More from Thunderous Intentions
- Stealing one player from every Southwest Division team for the OKC Thunder
- Should the OKC Thunder chase after a disgruntled hometown hero?
- 3 OKC Thunder players who can step up in Aleksej Pokusevski’s absence
- Aleksej Pokusevski sidelined approximately 6 weeks with ankle injury
- Damian Lillard does not fit with the OKC Thunder
It’s fine if you don’t think Kanter is worth $70 million over four years, but I find it odd that this deal is coming under so much scrutiny.
First off, this wasn’t what the Thunder offered Kanter. According to most reports, the Thunder wanted to sign the center to a four year deal for around $58 million. The only reason he’s getting $70 million is because that’s how much the Blazers offered him and OKC, instead of losing him for nothing, decided to match. Would Kanter still be overpaid at $14.5 million per season instead of $17 million? I guess that depends on how valuable you believe he is.
We all know what Kanter can and can’t do on the court. He can score, he can rebound, but he can’t defend. That last part is the part that everyone is harping on. “How can you pay $70 million to a guy who is exceptionally bad defensively and might not even start?” is the most common thing I’ve read.
Mandatory Credit: Russ Isabella-USA TODAY Sports
Think about this, DeAndre Jordan would’ve gotten $80 million over four years from the Dallas Mavericks and ended up getting $88 million over four years from the Los Angeles Clippers. Jordan can defend and rebound, but unless Chris Paul is throwing the ball in the air, he’s not much of a scorer. He’s the starter in Los Angeles and he would’ve been the starter in Dallas, but is he really worth $22 million a season when he can’t be used at the end of games due to his poor free throw shooting? The Clippers mask a lot of Jordan’s weaknesses, but that didn’t stop the Mavericks from nearly paying him $20 million to be “the guy” even though he’s never proven himself as a truly dominant low-post center offensively and needs to be taken out of close games late.
Yet for some reason, everyone is praising the Clippers for taking Jordan hostage and signing him to a deal bigger than Kanter’s. Why? Because Jordan is an extremely valuable player who gives them something that teams desperately seek. Well, Kanter gives OKC something that they’ve desperately needed for years: a low-post scoring center. Kanter averaged 18.7 points and 11 rebounds in a Thunder uniform while also developing a great chemistry with star point guard Russell Westbrook. For years, everyone with an opinion said, “OKC needs a post-scorer to take the pressure off Durant and Westbrook.” Now they finally have one and all of a sudden he’s not worth it?
Also, remember Reggie Jackson? The former Thunder point guard signed a five year deal worth $80 million with the Detroit Pistons in the offseason. Jackson turned down a four year deal worth $48 million with the Thunder last year and was headed for restricted free agency before being dealt to Detroit during the season. Had OKC kept Jackson with the intention to match any offer like they did with Kanter, then they’d be paying him $16 million per season instead of the $17 million that they’ll be paying Kanter.
Kanter is a much more valuable asset to the Thunder than Jackson would’ve been. Jackson was never going to surpass Westbrook as the starting point guard, and while he was a dynamic scorer and well-rounded offensive player, his defense is just as bad as Kanter’s. If OKC had just kept Jackson and paid him, would they be under this much fire?
Then, of course, there’s James Harden. It’s in the unwritten contract of everyone who writes about the Thunder and money that they must mention Harden. ESPN’s Royce Young already laid out the differences between paying Harden then and Kanter now, but let me add a little something: OKC wanted to pay Harden, just like they wanted to pay Kanter. They just didn’t want to pay either of them as much as they ended up with. Harden had one year left on his contract and OKC could’ve let that play out before going through the restricted free agency process with him in 2012, but they decided to deal him to Houston before things got that far.
After being the biggest prize at the trade deadline, it wouldn’t have looked good if the team turned around and traded him again in the offseason. Not only that, but who knows what the return for him would’ve been. Chances are, it would’ve been young players and draft picks, which could’ve been useful down the line, but isn’t very helpful to a team that is trying to win now.
And that right there is why OKC matched Portland’s offer of $70 million over four years. They are trying to win now. There’s no such thing as having too much talent on one team. No one puts together an All-Star team and decides that they want Wilson Chandler over Kevin Durant because they already have Steph Curry and Anthony Davis to handle the scoring. And no one, especially Thunder fans, should be upset that OKC is keeping Kanter.