Durant to Golden State

Outside, I am a Warriors fan, too. Have been since Klay joined them from WSU, my local college team. I have been a Celtic fan since the early 60's. I find it easy to follow both teams. They both play team ball and I am recently retired with the NBA League Pass. I feel like a parent in that I can love both at the same time. I find this website to be much more intelligent in their discourse and much more thoughtful of other points of view. Your opinion is valued by this basketball fan.

steve3344 wrote:And there's no "hate" for GS on my part.  They haven't been good long enough to hate them.  I said I was tired of them

From the "HERE WE GO" thread:

steve3344 wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:theres a new team to hate!!!!

Durant is a pussy

Already started hating 'em during the Finals.  Got a head start on most people.

Maybe you didn't really mean it, maybe a lot of people are just venting, but I'd say that's about as clear as it gets for hating on the Warriors. I don't see how I'm unreasonable for viewing what you've posted about the Warriors since then through that prism.

People reacted in a very emotional way to this Durant situation. There's a civil discussion to be had about whether it's good or bad, right or wrong, legitimate or not. The best place to start is by not giving traction to emotional rants like Felger's. Calling Durant's choice "pathetic" is ridiculous and acting like a middle schooler. I would certainly hope that it's more than just Golden State fans who want the discussion to rise above that level.

KennCelt wrote:Outside, I am a Warriors fan, too. Have been since Klay joined them from WSU, my local college team. I have been a Celtic fan since the early 60's. I find it easy to follow both teams. They both play team ball and I am recently retired with the NBA League Pass. I feel like a parent in that I can love both at the same time. I find this website to be much more intelligent in their discourse and much more thoughtful of other points of view. Your opinion is valued by this basketball fan.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

I've pointed out the similarities between the Warriors and the Celtics, both in the current Brad Stevens pace-and-space version and the selfless ball movement, man movement style of great Celtic teams of the past. To me, there should be a lot that Celtic fans should appreciate in the current Warriors team, but other factors have clouded that comparison, even before Durant's decision. Now that they have Durant, they've apparently become the evil empire that most of the rest of the country wants to root against, which I suppose is to be expected.

Still, I hope that educated basketball fans will be able to appreciate the way they play. To me, when they're playing well, they're playing the game the right way, as a team game. Durant seems like a perfect fit for that style of play. Getting him has come at a cost, however, and we'll see if the complete turnover of their bigs, their reduced depth, and their overall defense are adversely affected. I'm really, really glad they were able to keep Shaun Livingston. We'll see how the rest of the new parts fit.

Outside wrote:

steve3344 wrote:And there's no "hate" for GS on my part.  They haven't been good long enough to hate them.  I said I was tired of them

From the "HERE WE GO" thread:

steve3344 wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:theres a new team to hate!!!!

Durant is a pussy

Already started hating 'em during the Finals.  Got a head start on most people.

Maybe you didn't really mean it, maybe a lot of people are just venting, but I'd say that's about as clear as it gets for hating on the Warriors. I don't see how I'm unreasonable for viewing what you've posted about the Warriors since then through that prism.

People reacted in a very emotional way to this Durant situation. There's a civil discussion to be had about whether it's good or bad, right or wrong, legitimate or not. The best place to start is by not giving traction to emotional rants like Felger's. Calling Durant's choice "pathetic" is ridiculous and acting like a middle schooler. I would certainly hope that it's more than just Golden State fans who want the discussion to rise above that level.

I didn't initiate that.  I was just repeating what cowens had said.  Before or after, I've never used that word with regard to GS.  It was just a quick easy way to agree with cowens that we would prefer the Warriors lose to Cleveland.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics/2016/07/danny_ainge_reflects_on_kevin_durant_chase_that_came_up_just_short_for



Danny Ainge reflects on Kevin Durant chase that came up just short for Celtics


Steve Bulpett


Thursday, July 07, 2016



Credit: Christopher Evans
Boston Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge discusses the outcome of the NBA draft lottery at the Celtics' training facility in Waltham on Tuesday, May 17, 2016. Staff photo by Christopher Evans


 
SALT LAKE CITY -- The possibilities, the twists and turns, the roads not taken -- all of that and more has been going through Danny Ainge’s head since Monday when he received the phone call he didn’t want from Kevin Durant.

The free agent prize was making a courtesy call to the Celtics’ president of basketball operations ahead of his public announcement that would bring the dribbling world to a halt. It would be Golden State, not Boston.

If you are a Celtics fan, just know that Danny Ainge shared your deep disappointment that morning.

He still very much likes his club’s situation -- and rightly so -- but he is well aware of how much different things could have looked if Durant had gone Green.

And, just like the Celtic citizenry, he has wondered whether he could have done anything that would have changed that decision. Could he have made a trade? Could he have acquired a key player that convinced Kevin Durant to sign here?

“You know, I thought about that before and I’ve thought about that after, and I really don’t think so -- shy of a couple of moves that I couldn’t do,” Ainge told the Herald in a lengthy conversation this morning. “But in deals that we could have done that we refused to do, I don’t think that would have mattered for this. I think that KD really likes our players.”

In other words, Ainge would have had to part with one or more core players that were part of the reason Durant was attracted to the Celtics in the first place.

Ainge then paused and delivered the fundamental truth that doomed the Celtics’ pursuit.

“Under any circumstances,” he said, “we weren’t going to be able to produce Steph Curry, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green.”

The Celts did get Al Horford to agree to a free agent deal, a move the now-former Atlanta center delivered via Twitter after Ainge, Brad Stevens, ownership, a group of players and Tom Brady had met with Durant in the Hamptons earlier on Saturday.

But Durant may have been ahead of the C’s on that news.

“I got the impression that they knew something before we did,” said Ainge. “I know that they had some conversation. They were very familiar with what Horford was choosing between. It seemed to me in the presentation like Al and KD had been discussing their plans together.”

That was at least part of the reason Ainge allowed his hopes of attracting Durant to rise. But it was an emotional maze that he traveled in the process. He wondered if his hopes were realistic, and, if so, HOW realistic.

“You know, in a situation like that, you never really know,” Ainge said. “I didn’t really feel like we had a great chance, but I thought we had SOME chance. And then after we met with them, I felt like we had a real chance.

“I felt there for about 48 hours that we had a legitimate chance. It seemed like a really good fit. It seemed like a really good option for him, and it just wasn’t meant to be. He had other good options, too, but I did allow myself to get really excited for that 48-hour period, and it just didn’t happen.

“I felt like the meeting and presentation couldn’t have gone any better. I think we all felt that. I think it went as well as it could have, and we got a really good sense that it was going to be a really hard decision for him, but that we were a strong consideration.”

The Brady aspect seemed surreal from the outside as pictures of the Patriots quarterback walking with the Celtic crew circulated on the internet.

“We flew in to the Hamptons and we got in early, so we went out to have lunch,” said Ainge. “I think it was fun for all of us to sit there and talk to Tom Brady and ask him questions. You know, here’s a guy that’s going to be 39 next month, and he talked about his health and fitness and nutrition and his dedication to the game. I thought our players were listening intently to him. And he had some fun stories.”

The group that included Brad Stevens, owners Steve Pagliuca and Wyc Grousbeck, and players Isaiah Thomas, Jae Crowder, Marcus Smart and Kelly Olynyk then went to meet Durant.

“He’s a huge Tom Brady fan,” said Ainge, who noted that the two had met once before. “They talked for a minute or two and then we sat down as a group.”

The presentation was broken up into segments. They met as a group, then Durant, Brady and the Celtic players went outside to talk for a while. After that, Brady and the C’s players flew home. Ainge, Stevens and the owners remained and would take another chartered jet later.

It was then about basketball.

“We felt like that was the most important part of the whole presentation -- who he’d play with and how he’d be utilized,” Ainge said. “He had some good questions about that and about his role - how he would play, how we would use him. I think we did a great job of explaining and making a great presentation, and I think it was tempting for him. I think he is very, very excited about Boston and the history, the Celtics, all of that. I think he loved what Brad had to say. I think he was impressed with Brad’s preparation, and we had a really good feeling about it.”

But Durant’s feelings led him elsewhere. Despite several reports that he was choosing between Golden State and the incumbent, Oklahoma City, some were still caught a bit off guard when he walked into the Warriors’ furnished home rather than carve his own niche.

“You know, I’m not surprised,” said Ainge. “I think everybody in our basketball world knows that Golden State is a very tempting place to play right now. So surprised? No. We just hoped that he would want to be with us, but Golden State is a very good basketball team and it will be very interesting.”

Ainge believes things will be very interesting with his team, too.

“I feel like we’re in good position,” he said. “I feel like we still have all of our pieces. We’re excited about Jaylen [Brown, the top draft pick]. We’re excited about what’s going on for us in free agency [Horford]. And we’re continuing to develop guys that I think aren’t even in their prime of their career yet that are continuing to get better.

“And we still have a lot of opportunities. You know, we didn’t probably have as many transactions as we wanted. We had offers for the third pick in the draft and some of our young players in this process, and we just didn’t want to do it. We just thought it was too much. We like those things too much, so we’re going to move forward, and we’re excited about the direction that we’re headed.”

At issue in the near term is whether the Celtics will be able to make another move this summer that will significantly upgrade a roster that remains shy of the NBA’s elite.



bob


.

LOL, whatever. That thread was started on July 4 and was about Durant committing to the Warriors, not about the finals. And you didn't just repeat what Cowens said, you doubled-down on it. If you don't want to own what you said, there's not much I can do about that.

All I ask is that, if you want to disagree with what I say, disagree based on the content of what I say, not just because of which team I'm a fan of.

Outside wrote:LOL, whatever. That thread was started on July 4 and was about Durant committing to the Warriors, not about the finals. And you didn't just repeat what Cowens said, you doubled-down on it. If you don't want to own what you said, there's not much I can do about that.

All I ask is that, if you want to disagree with what I say, disagree based on the content of what I say, not just because of which team I'm a fan of.

One final thought on this and I'm done:  Even if I DID "hate" the Warriors, which I most certainly don't - I'm just tired of them and not a believer that they're an all-time team - WHO GIVES A FLYING F???  This is a Celtic board, and with you being a fan of an opposing team here, you should never take any offense (and ESPECIALLY not take it personally, which is ridiculous) when any kind of negativity is directed at your team.  Even if people say they hate them!!  That should be expected here.  There is only one team that gets all the love here and we know which one that is.  All others be damned while we are in pursuit of banner #18.

The whole thing that set you off was my comment that when you said there was a lot of hate being directed at Durant signing with the Warriors, I simply and accurately pointed out that that was "spoken like a Golden State fan."

How, on God's grey earth, that upset you so much is beyond my comprehension.  

I won't be continuing this back and forth anymore about this.  It's played itself out.

steve3344 wrote:

Outside wrote:LOL, whatever. That thread was started on July 4 and was about Durant committing to the Warriors, not about the finals. And you didn't just repeat what Cowens said, you doubled-down on it. If you don't want to own what you said, there's not much I can do about that.

All I ask is that, if you want to disagree with what I say, disagree based on the content of what I say, not just because of which team I'm a fan of.

One final thought on this and I'm done:  Even if I DID "hate" the Warriors, which I most certainly don't - I'm just tired of them and not a believer that they're an all-time team - WHO GIVES A FLYING F???  This is a Celtic board, and with you being a fan of an opposing team here, you should never take any offense (and ESPECIALLY not take it personally, which is ridiculous) when any kind of negativity is directed at your team.  Even if people say they hate them!!  That should be expected here.  There is only one team that gets all the love here and we know which one that is.  All others be damned while we are in pursuit of banner #18.

The whole thing that set you off is was my comment that when you said there was a lot of hate being directed at Durant signing with the Warriors, I simply and accurately pointed out that that was "spoken like a Golden State fan."

How, on God's grey earth, that upset you so much is beyond my comprehension.  

I won't be continuing this back and forth anymore about this.  It's played itself out.

Amen.  Exclamation Point!  This is way old news for everybody.  The competition for Durant is over, so the tensions preceding and immediately succeeding that decision can pass now.  It would have been nice if it passed quietly and peacefully in its sleep and not like a kidney stone, but...

Didn't get the "God's grey earth" reference.  Oh, got it, you live in Manhattan...


bob


.

"Russell Westbrook Was Supposedly Put Off By Kevin Durant's Relationship With Draymond Green"

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/russell-westbrook-supposedly-put-off-232006231.html

Here's an amazing quote from Jeff Van Gundy to Adrian Wojnarowski about Durant being very chummy with Draymond Green last year:

“And there’s no question, I know Russell [Westbrook] was bothered by — and some other teammates were too — of, like, there was some knowledge there that Draymond [Green] was in contact with Kevin [Durant] all season long and they’re in a playoff series and I know there was some conversation around the Thunder team of ‘hey man, this guy kicked Steven Adams in the nuts twice in this series and what are you doing hanging out with this guy? What’s the relationship? We’re trying to beat these guys.’”

This is about Durants weak choice, its not about GS.

How would history look if Wilt decided to sign with the Celtics and so did Jerry West after getting tired of losing every year? How about if Magic decided to join the Celtics in say 85? or Jordan joining Pistons in 90 after getting beaten up in ECF? So Durant faced some difficulty on his own in closing a series up 3-1 and he signs with that team, the 2 time Finalists a month later? do you see Outside that he took a gutless easy way out, that other HoF greats wouldn't even think of doing such a thing.

cowens/oldschool wrote:This is about Durants weak choice, its not about GS.

How would history look if Wilt decided to sign with the Celtics and so did Jerry West after getting tired of losing every year? How about if Magic decided to join the Celtics in say 85? or Jordan joining Pistons in 90 after getting beaten up in ECF? So Durant faced some difficulty on his own in closing a series up 3-1 and he signs with that team, the 2 time Finalists a month later? do you see Outside that he took a gutless easy way out, that other HoF greats wouldn't even think of doing such a thing.

No free agency back in the 60's so your below statement is strictly speculation on your part.

"do you see Outside that he took a gutless easy way out, that other HoF greats wouldn't even think of doing such a thing."


swish

Cow,

I don't think that's a fair comparison.

Different era and circumstances.

I agree with your examples; all players with strong loyalty who, in their time, would probably rather quit than play for a long-time rival.  But I don't think they had anywhere near the security or opportunities that today's players can grab.  Who doesn't want to know their kids are probably set for life?

As we all know, The Seitz Decision, in 1975, opened the free agency door to baseball which eventually spread to the other professional sports big leagues.  Once Tom Chambers brought free agent status to the NBA in 1988, a slow slide to where we are now began.  NBA expansion, and now the new TV contract and it's revenue, have only helped accelerate the process.

You could just as easily speculate that if today's circumstances happened in the 60's, there wouldn't be so many banners in the rafters at TD Garden and Wilt or Hondo could have taken their talents to South Beach.

When you and I were kids, my friend, it was a game built on honor and loyalty.  Now, it's business and creating a legacy.

Regards

NY Celt

Lets look at recent NBA history, Lebron left Cleveland the first time because he couldn't get over the hump that was the Boston Celtics and he had given the Cavs ample time to build around him....he knew he needed a much better supporting cast. Ainge started this whole thing by creating the first super team by trading his chips, creating the Big 3. Lebron and friends took matters into their own hands making up their own Big 3 to compete with our Big 3, but he never considered joining our team and Danny never considered even trying to pry him. I respect that Lebron knew he focked his hometown and adoring fans and went back to pursue his original goal to end the title less drought. Hes got heart and integrity and his charity work offering scholarships to hundreds of Cleveland kids is a great story too, Lebron gets it.

Durant went to a handpicked great situation for him that is unprecedented, even if I was wrong technically in my previous post I still can't imagine Larry or Michael or Magic being an MVP leaving their franchise to join forces with another MVP on a championship ready team even if they could have done it, after a painful loss. Durant left a contending team that was going thru the same growing pains that other champions in history had to go thru, he obviously has no real heart or strength to endure, and it even showed in his game, hes a pussy in my book.

cow

cowens/oldschool wrote:NY Celt

Lets look at recent NBA history, Lebron left Cleveland the first time because he couldn't get over the hump that was the Boston Celtics and he had given the Cavs ample time to build around him....he knew he needed a much better supporting cast. Ainge started this whole thing by creating the first super team by trading his chips, creating the Big 3. Lebron and friends took matters into their own hands making up their own Big 3 to compete with our Big 3, but he never considered joining our team and Danny never considered even trying to pry him. I respect that Lebron knew he focked his hometown and adoring fans and went back to pursue his original goal to end the title less drought. Hes got heart and integrity and his charity work offering scholarships to hundreds on Cleveland kids is a great story too, Lebron gets it.

Durant went to a handpicked great situation for him that is unprecedented, even if I was wrong technically in my previous post I still can't imagine Larry or Michael or Magic being an MVP leaving their franchise to join forces with another MVP on a championship ready team even if they could have done it, after a painful loss. Durant left a contending team that was going thru the same growing pains that other champions in history had to go thru, he obviously has no real heart or strength to endure, and it even showed in his game, hes a pussy in my book.

cow

How about Aldridge jilting Portlands playoff team and joining up with the Spurs last year?

swish

I don't remember Portland ever being up 3-1 to go to the Finals and then their franchise player going to the team that beat them that was also a 2 time Finalist and previous champion.....also I think that Blazer team, besides Aldridge lost 4 of their 5 starters from the previous year, that team knew they had run its course, or it seems the actions of the players said that.....decent point though.

swish wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:NY Celt

Lets look at recent NBA history, Lebron left Cleveland the first time because he couldn't get over the hump that was the Boston Celtics and he had given the Cavs ample time to build around him....he knew he needed a much better supporting cast. Ainge started this whole thing by creating the first super team by trading his chips, creating the Big 3. Lebron and friends took matters into their own hands making up their own Big 3 to compete with our Big 3, but he never considered joining our team and Danny never considered even trying to pry him. I respect that Lebron knew he focked his hometown and adoring fans and went back to pursue his original goal to end the title less drought. Hes got heart and integrity and his charity work offering scholarships to hundreds on Cleveland kids is a great story too, Lebron gets it.

Durant went to a handpicked great situation for him that is unprecedented, even if I was wrong technically in my previous post I still can't imagine Larry or Michael or Magic being an MVP leaving their franchise to join forces with another MVP on a championship ready team even if they could have done it, after a painful loss. Durant left a contending team that was going thru the same growing pains that other champions in history had to go thru, he obviously has no real heart or strength to endure, and it even showed in his game, hes a pussy in my book.

cow

How about Aldridge jilting Portlands playoff team and joining up with the Spurs last year?

swish

One of LaMarcus's motivations was wanting to go back home to Texas. But if he REALLY wanted to go home he would have signed with Dallas, where he was born. Still, SA is only a four hour drive from Dallas. Or a 45 minute flight. And I'm sure LaMarcus can afford the plane ticket...

http://www.csnbayarea.com/warriors/source-veteran-forward-jackson-not-invited-warriors-camp?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

After three years of not playing, Stephen Jackson wants to return the the NBA and play with the Warriors.

What a surprise. What a moron.

The arguments criticizing Durant for going to the Warriors are based on emotion but don't hold up to logical scrutiny.

Argument 1: The old time greats like Bird and Magic never would have considered going to play on a rival's team.

As Swish pointed out, this is a fantasy argument because there was no free agency in those days. Plus Durant has played nine years, and by that point in their careers, both Bird and Magic were on veritable all-star teams that had already won multiple championships (three for Bird, five for Magic), so the need to leave to win a championship elsewhere wasn't an issue.

Consider the case of Oscar Robertson. Although it wasn't a free agent move, after 10 seasons with the Royals, Oscar was traded to the Bucks, who were an excellent 56-26 the prior season and already had Kareem. They won the title their first season together, and Oscar's career and reputation are greatly enhanced by that championship. That was an MVP at about the same point in his career as Durant going to join another MVP in order to win a title.

Charles Barkley said that no one in his day would've done what Durant did, but Barkley forced trades twice during his career to try to win a championship. He didn't go to the Bulls because that wasn't an option, but he went to a very good Phoenix team that was 53-29 the previous season and went to the finals with him. After four years in Phoenix, he forced another trade to Houston, which was only one year removed from their title runs, the same as Durant with Golden State. Barkley never got his ring, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

In 1982, Moses Malone, the reigning MVP, joined the Philadelphia 76ers, who had just lost in the finals and had the previous MVP, Julius Erving. Malone signed as a free agent, though the deal was ultimately done as a sign and trade. That's about as similar to Durant's move as you can get.

Durant is nine years into his career and has already lost most of a season to a Jones fracture in his foot, which is a potentially career-ending injury if it happens again. Both Bird and Magic had their careers cut short due to health reasons, and as much as the need to win burned inside them, you can bet that if they were nine years into their careers without a title, they would be looking to do whatever they could to get that ring. Durant isn't guaranteed another 10 years. Injuries happen. This far into his career, he's justified to put himself in position to win a title.

Argument 2: Leaving is the coward's way out. Durant should be loyal to the team and the fans in OKC.

This argument has its roots in the forced loyalty of the old days, when players had no choice but to stay with a team. It also assumes loyalty is a one-way street.

Why should the player be loyal to the franchise, no matter what? Teams can and do trade players all the time. Why should Durant be loyal to the Thunder? Where was the loyalty in the Bennett family when they bought the Seattle Supersonics and moved them to to Oklahoma City, a wound that still festers in Seattle? Why should Durant be loyal when ownership showed zero loyalty when they bought the team?

In a podcast I listened to recently, one of the commentators knew of multiple players who had heard rumors they might be traded and asked management if there were any truth to the rumors. The players were concered because they were in the process of making life decisions, like buying a house or putting their kids in a new school, and if there were any truth to the rumors, that would be good to know. Management assured the players that there was nothing to the rumors, that they could continue with what they were doing with their families, but then the team traded the players shortly afterward. Yet the player should always be loyal?

When it comes to these issues, the NBA is a business, and management is under no obligation to be loyal to players. What's changed is that, with unrestricted free agency, it's now a two-way street where players are under no obligation to be loyal to the team.

The problem is that many fans think it should be like it was before free agency, when most players stayed with one team, because that reflects the emotional attachment the fans have. But like three-pointers, free agency has been around for quite a while now, even if, like three-pointers, it's taken a while for the league to fully realize the ramifications.

Another aspect is that fans think free agency is fine for everyone except superstars. If anyone other than a superstar moves in free agency, well, that's how the system works. But if a superstar moves in free agency, that's a gutless, cowardly move by the superstar, who should stay with his team. Superstars do have the burden of added responsibilities, but staying with one team forever is not one of them. Durant has played with the same franchise for nine seasons; he's allowed to make the choice to move on.

Argument 3: He should stay with the Thunder because they were so close to winning a title.

They did seem very close, but the net result is that they didn't win a title and didn't deliver on the promise they showed when they got to the finals in 2012.

We're not privy to what goes on with a team or a particular player, but some reports say that Durant was frustrated with several things about the team.

They got to a certain point with Scott Brooks, but the offense was rudimentary and relied on iso-ball, and Durant was supposedly okay with the decision to get rid of Brooks.

But the offense didn't improve during the regular season under Billy Donovan. The Thunder ranked dead last in passes per game, and the offense was largely unchanged from what it was under Brooks. Even thought Durant shot a good percentage, he took a ton of contested shots. The offense got better for a few games in the playoffs, but that wasn't consistent and didn't last. Durant had the direct comparison of the Warriors, who are among the best at pace and space, moving the ball, and getting uncontested shots. He saw how successful their system is and how the Thunder's offense contrasted with that.

Then there was the issue of Russell Westbrook. While Durant and Westbrook like each other personally and forged a good relationship on the court, Westbrook's tendency to dominate the ball and take contested isolation shots is the opposite of the pace and space, ball-movement and man-movement offense that Durant wanted. Add to that the uncertainty of what Westbrook might do when he became an unrestricted free agent after next season -- even if Durant stayed, there was no guarantee that Westbrook would do the same. Durant wanted to make his long-term decision now, and the whole Westbrook situation wasn't conducive to committing long term in OKC.

So while they were a contender and came close this season, add up all the other factors, and the option of staying in OKC wasn't the simple decision this argument presumes.

Argument 4: Going to another team is okay, but not to the team that just beat you in the playoffs.

This again seems to be an unwritten rule that only applies to superstars. Andre Iguodala went from the Nuggets to the Warriors right after Denver lost to Golden State in the playoffs, and I don't recall anyone bringing up this unwritten rule. More on this in the response to the next argument.

Argument 5: Going to another team is okay, but going to an already loaded, championship-level team like the Warriors is a cheap way to win a title.

By this logic, it's okay to leave for another team, but if you're a superstar, you can't go to a team that's too good.

For Celtic fans, there's an extra dimension here because they wanted Durant to leave to come to their team. Boston offers all the advantages of a pace-and-space offense, great coaching, and young core that Durant could help become championship contenders in a couple of years. Golden State also offer pace and space, great coaching, and young core. However, joining Boston is okay, but joining the Warriors is not okay because they're already championship contenders -- in essence, they're too good.

But why shouldn't Durant go to the best possible situation? Because certain pundits and fans say he shouldn't?

It's been clear all along that Golden State was the best situation for him. They have the best core group, the ideal system for Durant, great coaching, a selfless attitude, and they play with joy. The only reasons to stay in OKC instead of going to the Warriors were his sense of loyalty to the team and fans and staying in a situation that he was comfortable with. The only reason to go to Boston instead of the Warriors was the fact that Boston is in the Eastern conference, which offers an easier path to finals.

The other consideration brought up is that Durant won't be "the man" in Golden State. He'll have to share the ball and the limelight with Curry, Klay, and Green, and by extension, share the credit for winning a title with them.

But no great player earns a title by themselves. The Russell era Celtics were a collection of Hall of Famers. The Bird era Celtics had four Hall of Famers (Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ), five if you count Walton, plus an all-star in Ainge and other very good players. The Lakers had three HOFs (Magic, Kareem, Worthy), four if you count McAdoo, plus other very good players (Michael Cooper, A.C. Green, Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis, Mychal Thompson). Any great team has multiple great players.

If Durant is comfortable with who he is as a player, he can be comfortable with winning titles as part of a team and have confidence that his abilities will shine through and his importance to winning any titles will be recognized.

Another part of this is prejudice against a player making a decision to join other great players. Cowens calls Durant a "pussy" for doing this. But if a team makes a trade to assemble that same roster, the GM would be hailed as a genius. Why is it okay for a GM to make a trade to acquire that player but it's not okay for the player to make a decision to join that team?

The collective bargaining agreement is designed to prevent this type of thing from happening through the salary cap, but due to the new TV deal with the league and the subsequent jump in the cap, there is a rare opportunity for a player in Durant's position to have the option of joining a team like the Warriors. Red Auerbach is a genius for drafting Larry Bird after his junior season (a move the league then prevented from recurring with the Bird Collegiate Rule). The Lakers were geniuses for fleecing Ted Stepien of the Cavs for a first round pick in exchange for Don Ford, a pick that added James Worthy to a championship-level team (and led the league to introduce the Stepien Rule). They took advantage of the rules and unusual situations as they were to build great championship teams. Why is Durant a villian for essentially doing the same thing?

Durant made a choice to go to the best possible situation for him, an option made possible by a convergence of circumstance and timing. It makes no sense for the one team that fits him best to somehow be off limits because it's too good of a situation.

Next summer, Kevin Durant (player option), Steph Curry, Russell Westbrook, Blake Griffin (player option, Chris Paul (player option), Gordon Hayward (player option), and Kyle Lowry (player option) all could be unrestricted free agents, and the salary cap is going to take another jump. Some of those players will stay with their current teams, but some will move. When it's all said and done, there may be another team or two with multiple stars that is a new powerhouse.

This is the way it plays out when free agency meets a huge increase in the salary cap. Don't blame Durant and the Warriors for taking advantage of that situation to make a decision that is beneficial to them both.

Outside,

Most complete, original, and well reasoned post I've read in an awfully long time.  Incredibly well written.

This should be read in a much wider circulation than our little corner of the world.

My compliments!

Outside wrote:The arguments criticizing Durant for going to the Warriors are based on emotion but don't hold up to logical scrutiny.

Argument 1: The old time greats like Bird and Magic never would have considered going to play on a rival's team.

As Swish pointed out, this is a fantasy argument because there was no free agency in those days. Plus Durant has played nine years, and by that point in their careers, both Bird and Magic were on veritable all-star teams that had already won multiple championships (three for Bird, five for Magic), so the need to leave to win a championship elsewhere wasn't an issue.

Consider the case of Oscar Robertson. Although it wasn't a free agent move, after 10 seasons with the Royals, Oscar was traded to the Bucks, who were an excellent 56-26 the prior season and already had Kareem. They won the title their first season together, and Oscar's career and reputation are greatly enhanced by that championship. That was an MVP at about the same point in his career as Durant going to join another MVP in order to win a title.

Charles Barkley said that no one in his day would've done what Durant did, but Barkley forced trades twice during his career to try to win a championship. He didn't go to the Bulls because that wasn't an option, but he went to a very good Phoenix team that was 53-29 the previous season and went to the finals with him. After four years in Phoenix, he forced another trade to Houston, which was only one year removed from their title runs, the same as Durant with Golden State. Barkley never got his ring, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

In 1982, Moses Malone, the reigning MVP, joined the Philadelphia 76ers, who had just lost in the finals and had the previous MVP, Julius Erving. Malone signed as a free agent, though the deal was ultimately done as a sign and trade. That's about as similar to Durant's move as you can get.

Durant is nine years into his career and has already lost most of a season to a Jones fracture in his foot, which is a potentially career-ending injury if it happens again. Both Bird and Magic had their careers cut short due to health reasons, and as much as the need to win burned inside them, you can bet that if they were nine years into their careers without a title, they would be looking to do whatever they could to get that ring. Durant isn't guaranteed another 10 years. Injuries happen. This far into his career, he's justified to put himself in position to win a title.

Argument 2: Leaving is the coward's way out. Durant should be loyal to the team and the fans in OKC.

This argument has its roots in the forced loyalty of the old days, when players had no choice but to stay with a team. It also assumes loyalty is a one-way street.

Why should the player be loyal to the franchise, no matter what? Teams can and do trade players all the time. Why should Durant be loyal to the Thunder? Where was the loyalty in the Bennett family when they bought the Seattle Supersonics and moved them to to Oklahoma City, a wound that still festers in Seattle? Why should Durant be loyal when ownership showed zero loyalty when they bought the team?

In a podcast I listened to recently, one of the commentators knew of multiple players who had heard rumors they might be traded and asked management if there were any truth to the rumors. The players were concered because they were in the process of making life decisions, like buying a house or putting their kids in a new school, and if there were any truth to the rumors, that would be good to know. Management assured the players that there was nothing to the rumors, that they could continue with what they were doing with their families, but then the team traded the players shortly afterward. Yet the player should always be loyal?

When it comes to these issues, the NBA is a business, and management is under no obligation to be loyal to players. What's changed is that, with unrestricted free agency, it's now a two-way street where players are under no obligation to be loyal to the team.

The problem is that many fans think it should be like it was before free agency, when most players stayed with one team, because that reflects the emotional attachment the fans have. But like three-pointers, free agency has been around for quite a while now, even if, like three-pointers, it's taken a while for the league to fully realize the ramifications.

Another aspect is that fans think free agency is fine for everyone except superstars. If anyone other than a superstar moves in free agency, well, that's how the system works. But if a superstar moves in free agency, that's a gutless, cowardly move by the superstar, who should stay with his team. Superstars do have the burden of added responsibilities, but staying with one team forever is not one of them. Durant has played with the same franchise for nine seasons; he's allowed to make the choice to move on.

Argument 3: He should stay with the Thunder because they were so close to winning a title.

They did seem very close, but the net result is that they didn't win a title and didn't deliver on the promise they showed when they got to the finals in 2012.

We're not privy to what goes on with a team or a particular player, but some reports say that Durant was frustrated with several things about the team.

They got to a certain point with Scott Brooks, but the offense was rudimentary and relied on iso-ball, and Durant was supposedly okay with the decision to get rid of Brooks.

But the offense didn't improve during the regular season under Billy Donovan. The Thunder ranked dead last in passes per game, and the offense was largely unchanged from what it was under Brooks. Even thought Durant shot a good percentage, he took a ton of contested shots. The offense got better for a few games in the playoffs, but that wasn't consistent and didn't last. Durant had the direct comparison of the Warriors, who are among the best at pace and space, moving the ball, and getting uncontested shots. He saw how successful their system is and how the Thunder's offense contrasted with that.

Then there was the issue of Russell Westbrook. While Durant and Westbrook like each other personally and forged a good relationship on the court, Westbrook's tendency to dominate the ball and take contested isolation shots is the opposite of the pace and space, ball-movement and man-movement offense that Durant wanted. Add to that the uncertainty of what Westbrook might do when he became an unrestricted free agent after next season -- even if Durant stayed, there was no guarantee that Westbrook would do the same. Durant wanted to make his long-term decision now, and the whole Westbrook situation wasn't conducive to committing long term in OKC.

So while they were a contender and came close this season, add up all the other factors, and the option of staying in OKC wasn't the simple decision this argument presumes.

Argument 4: Going to another team is okay, but not to the team that just beat you in the playoffs.

This again seems to be an unwritten rule that only applies to superstars. Andre Iguodala went from the Nuggets to the Warriors right after Denver lost to Golden State in the playoffs, and I don't recall anyone bringing up this unwritten rule. More on this in the response to the next argument.

Argument 5: Going to another team is okay, but going to an already loaded, championship-level team like the Warriors is a cheap way to win a title.

By this logic, it's okay to leave for another team, but if you're a superstar, you can't go to a team that's too good.

For Celtic fans, there's an extra dimension here because they wanted Durant to leave to come to their team. Boston offers all the advantages of a pace-and-space offense, great coaching, and young core that Durant could help become championship contenders in a couple of years. Golden State also offer pace and space, great coaching, and young core. However, joining Boston is okay, but joining the Warriors is not okay because they're already championship contenders -- in essence, they're too good.

But why shouldn't Durant go to the best possible situation? Because certain pundits and fans say he shouldn't?

It's been clear all along that Golden State was the best situation for him. They have the best core group, the ideal system for Durant, great coaching, a selfless attitude, and they play with joy. The only reasons to stay in OKC instead of going to the Warriors were his sense of loyalty to the team and fans and staying in a situation that he was comfortable with. The only reason to go to Boston instead of the Warriors was the fact that Boston is in the Eastern conference, which offers an easier path to finals.

The other consideration brought up is that Durant won't be "the man" in Golden State. He'll have to share the ball and the limelight with Curry, Klay, and Green, and by extension, share the credit for winning a title with them.

But no great player earns a title by themselves. The Russell era Celtics were a collection of Hall of Famers. The Bird era Celtics had four Hall of Famers (Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ), five if you count Walton, plus an all-star in Ainge and other very good players. The Lakers had three HOFs (Magic, Kareem, Worthy), four if you count McAdoo, plus other very good players (Michael Cooper, A.C. Green, Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis, Mychal Thompson). Any great team has multiple great players.

If Durant is comfortable with who he is as a player, he can be comfortable with winning titles as part of a team and have confidence that his abilities will shine through and his importance to winning any titles will be recognized.

Another part of this is prejudice against a player making a decision to join other great players. Cowens calls Durant a "pussy" for doing this. But if a team makes a trade to assemble that same roster, the GM would be hailed as a genius. Why is it okay for a GM to make a trade to acquire that player but it's not okay for the player to make a decision to join that team?

The collective bargaining agreement is designed to prevent this type of thing from happening through the salary cap, but due to the new TV deal with the league and the subsequent jump in the cap, there is a rare opportunity for a player in Durant's position to have the option of joining a team like the Warriors. Red Auerbach is a genius for drafting Larry Bird after his junior season (a move the league then prevented from recurring with the Bird Collegiate Rule). The Lakers were geniuses for fleecing Ted Stepien of the Cavs for a first round pick in exchange for Don Ford, a pick that added James Worthy to a championship-level team (and led the league to introduce the Stepien Rule). They took advantage of the rules and unusual situations as they were to build great championship teams. Why is Durant a villian for essentially doing the same thing?

Durant made a choice to go to the best possible situation for him, an option made possible by a convergence of circumstance and timing. It makes no sense for the one team that fits him best to somehow be off limits because it's too good of a situation.

Next summer, Kevin Durant (player option), Steph Curry, Russell Westbrook, Blake Griffin (player option, Chris Paul (player option), Gordon Hayward (player option), and Kyle Lowry (player option) all could be unrestricted free agents, and the salary cap is going to take another jump. Some of those players will stay with their current teams, but some will move. When it's all said and done, there may be another team or two with multiple stars that is a new powerhouse.

This is the way it plays out when free agency meets a huge increase in the salary cap. Don't blame Durant and the Warriors for taking advantage of that situation to make a decision that is beneficial to them both.

 " Westbrook's tendency to dominate the ball and take contested isolation shots is the opposite of the pace and space, ball-movement and man-movement offense that Durant wanted."

 I think that your above statement could very well be a major reason for Durants moving on. In another post I commented about Westbrooks ability to shoot his team out of contention. The below comparative stats will point out just how poorly he shot in playoff games.

   Based on total playoff games vs games where the players field goal percentage was under .400                                                                                                
   Westbrook vs Jordan, James, Durant and Bird.

   Jordan, - 28 of 177 = .158    James, - 43 of 199 = .216     Durant, - 22 of 91 = .242     Bird, - 38 of 148 = .257      Westbrook, - 37 of 82 = .451
Sort of makes Westbrook look like a gunner with lousy results.

 swish

Wanted to stop by and see what the board thought of this - glad to find this thread and some great contributions from many, particularly Outside.

The only thing I heard as a criticism of Durant was one that is probably meant to be a dig, but I took it to ring fairly true.

By moving to Golden State, Durant is in essence admitting he either cannot be or doesn't want to be "the man" on a championship caliber team. GS is Currys team and by going there, KD admits he is OK being second fiddle.

THIS is what Jordan, Bird, Magic and many others would never have gone for. It isnt about necessarily playing with talented players or even accepting a trade - it is about being "THE MAN"- In spite of it all, when KG and Ray came here, this was still Paul Pierce's team first.

Anyway - will be interesting to see to say the least. Hope to get time to stop by here and there. Best to you all.

mrkleen09 wrote:Wanted to stop by and see what the board thought of this - glad to find this thread and some great contributions from many, particularly Outside.

The only thing I heard as a criticism of Durant was one that is probably meant to be a dig, but I took it to ring fairly true.

By moving to Golden State, Durant is in essence admitting he either cannot be or doesn't want to be "the man" on a championship caliber team.  GS is Currys team and by going there, KD admits he is OK being second fiddle.  

THIS is what Jordan, Bird, Magic and many others would never have gone for.  It isnt about necessarily playing with talented players or even accepting a trade - it is about being "THE MAN"-  In spite of it all, when KG and Ray came here, this was still Paul Pierce's team first.

Anyway - will be interesting to see to say the least.  Hope to get time to stop by here and there.  Best to you all.

MrKleen,

Thanks for stopping by. I'm sure your hands are quite full. How is mom and child?


bob


.

Outside wrote:The arguments criticizing Durant for going to the Warriors are based on emotion but don't hold up to logical scrutiny.

Argument 1: The old time greats like Bird and Magic never would have considered going to play on a rival's team.

As Swish pointed out, this is a fantasy argument because there was no free agency in those days. Plus Durant has played nine years, and by that point in their careers, both Bird and Magic were on veritable all-star teams that had already won multiple championships (three for Bird, five for Magic), so the need to leave to win a championship elsewhere wasn't an issue.

Consider the case of Oscar Robertson. Although it wasn't a free agent move, after 10 seasons with the Royals, Oscar was traded to the Bucks, who were an excellent 56-26 the prior season and already had Kareem. They won the title their first season together, and Oscar's career and reputation are greatly enhanced by that championship. That was an MVP at about the same point in his career as Durant going to join another MVP in order to win a title.

Charles Barkley said that no one in his day would've done what Durant did, but Barkley forced trades twice during his career to try to win a championship. He didn't go to the Bulls because that wasn't an option, but he went to a very good Phoenix team that was 53-29 the previous season and went to the finals with him. After four years in Phoenix, he forced another trade to Houston, which was only one year removed from their title runs, the same as Durant with Golden State. Barkley never got his ring, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

In 1982, Moses Malone, the reigning MVP, joined the Philadelphia 76ers, who had just lost in the finals and had the previous MVP, Julius Erving. Malone signed as a free agent, though the deal was ultimately done as a sign and trade. That's about as similar to Durant's move as you can get.

Durant is nine years into his career and has already lost most of a season to a Jones fracture in his foot, which is a potentially career-ending injury if it happens again. Both Bird and Magic had their careers cut short due to health reasons, and as much as the need to win burned inside them, you can bet that if they were nine years into their careers without a title, they would be looking to do whatever they could to get that ring. Durant isn't guaranteed another 10 years. Injuries happen. This far into his career, he's justified to put himself in position to win a title.

Argument 2: Leaving is the coward's way out. Durant should be loyal to the team and the fans in OKC.

This argument has its roots in the forced loyalty of the old days, when players had no choice but to stay with a team. It also assumes loyalty is a one-way street.

Why should the player be loyal to the franchise, no matter what? Teams can and do trade players all the time. Why should Durant be loyal to the Thunder? Where was the loyalty in the Bennett family when they bought the Seattle Supersonics and moved them to to Oklahoma City, a wound that still festers in Seattle? Why should Durant be loyal when ownership showed zero loyalty when they bought the team?

In a podcast I listened to recently, one of the commentators knew of multiple players who had heard rumors they might be traded and asked management if there were any truth to the rumors. The players were concered because they were in the process of making life decisions, like buying a house or putting their kids in a new school, and if there were any truth to the rumors, that would be good to know. Management assured the players that there was nothing to the rumors, that they could continue with what they were doing with their families, but then the team traded the players shortly afterward. Yet the player should always be loyal?

When it comes to these issues, the NBA is a business, and management is under no obligation to be loyal to players. What's changed is that, with unrestricted free agency, it's now a two-way street where players are under no obligation to be loyal to the team.

The problem is that many fans think it should be like it was before free agency, when most players stayed with one team, because that reflects the emotional attachment the fans have. But like three-pointers, free agency has been around for quite a while now, even if, like three-pointers, it's taken a while for the league to fully realize the ramifications.

Another aspect is that fans think free agency is fine for everyone except superstars. If anyone other than a superstar moves in free agency, well, that's how the system works. But if a superstar moves in free agency, that's a gutless, cowardly move by the superstar, who should stay with his team. Superstars do have the burden of added responsibilities, but staying with one team forever is not one of them. Durant has played with the same franchise for nine seasons; he's allowed to make the choice to move on.

Argument 3: He should stay with the Thunder because they were so close to winning a title.

They did seem very close, but the net result is that they didn't win a title and didn't deliver on the promise they showed when they got to the finals in 2012.

We're not privy to what goes on with a team or a particular player, but some reports say that Durant was frustrated with several things about the team.

They got to a certain point with Scott Brooks, but the offense was rudimentary and relied on iso-ball, and Durant was supposedly okay with the decision to get rid of Brooks.

But the offense didn't improve during the regular season under Billy Donovan. The Thunder ranked dead last in passes per game, and the offense was largely unchanged from what it was under Brooks. Even thought Durant shot a good percentage, he took a ton of contested shots. The offense got better for a few games in the playoffs, but that wasn't consistent and didn't last. Durant had the direct comparison of the Warriors, who are among the best at pace and space, moving the ball, and getting uncontested shots. He saw how successful their system is and how the Thunder's offense contrasted with that.

Then there was the issue of Russell Westbrook. While Durant and Westbrook like each other personally and forged a good relationship on the court, Westbrook's tendency to dominate the ball and take contested isolation shots is the opposite of the pace and space, ball-movement and man-movement offense that Durant wanted. Add to that the uncertainty of what Westbrook might do when he became an unrestricted free agent after next season -- even if Durant stayed, there was no guarantee that Westbrook would do the same. Durant wanted to make his long-term decision now, and the whole Westbrook situation wasn't conducive to committing long term in OKC.

So while they were a contender and came close this season, add up all the other factors, and the option of staying in OKC wasn't the simple decision this argument presumes.

Argument 4: Going to another team is okay, but not to the team that just beat you in the playoffs.

This again seems to be an unwritten rule that only applies to superstars. Andre Iguodala went from the Nuggets to the Warriors right after Denver lost to Golden State in the playoffs, and I don't recall anyone bringing up this unwritten rule. More on this in the response to the next argument.

Argument 5: Going to another team is okay, but going to an already loaded, championship-level team like the Warriors is a cheap way to win a title.

By this logic, it's okay to leave for another team, but if you're a superstar, you can't go to a team that's too good.

For Celtic fans, there's an extra dimension here because they wanted Durant to leave to come to their team. Boston offers all the advantages of a pace-and-space offense, great coaching, and young core that Durant could help become championship contenders in a couple of years. Golden State also offer pace and space, great coaching, and young core. However, joining Boston is okay, but joining the Warriors is not okay because they're already championship contenders -- in essence, they're too good.

But why shouldn't Durant go to the best possible situation? Because certain pundits and fans say he shouldn't?

It's been clear all along that Golden State was the best situation for him. They have the best core group, the ideal system for Durant, great coaching, a selfless attitude, and they play with joy. The only reasons to stay in OKC instead of going to the Warriors were his sense of loyalty to the team and fans and staying in a situation that he was comfortable with. The only reason to go to Boston instead of the Warriors was the fact that Boston is in the Eastern conference, which offers an easier path to finals.

The other consideration brought up is that Durant won't be "the man" in Golden State. He'll have to share the ball and the limelight with Curry, Klay, and Green, and by extension, share the credit for winning a title with them.

But no great player earns a title by themselves. The Russell era Celtics were a collection of Hall of Famers. The Bird era Celtics had four Hall of Famers (Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ), five if you count Walton, plus an all-star in Ainge and other very good players. The Lakers had three HOFs (Magic, Kareem, Worthy), four if you count McAdoo, plus other very good players (Michael Cooper, A.C. Green, Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis, Mychal Thompson). Any great team has multiple great players.

If Durant is comfortable with who he is as a player, he can be comfortable with winning titles as part of a team and have confidence that his abilities will shine through and his importance to winning any titles will be recognized.

Another part of this is prejudice against a player making a decision to join other great players. Cowens calls Durant a "pussy" for doing this. But if a team makes a trade to assemble that same roster, the GM would be hailed as a genius. Why is it okay for a GM to make a trade to acquire that player but it's not okay for the player to make a decision to join that team?

The collective bargaining agreement is designed to prevent this type of thing from happening through the salary cap, but due to the new TV deal with the league and the subsequent jump in the cap, there is a rare opportunity for a player in Durant's position to have the option of joining a team like the Warriors. Red Auerbach is a genius for drafting Larry Bird after his junior season (a move the league then prevented from recurring with the Bird Collegiate Rule). The Lakers were geniuses for fleecing Ted Stepien of the Cavs for a first round pick in exchange for Don Ford, a pick that added James Worthy to a championship-level team (and led the league to introduce the Stepien Rule). They took advantage of the rules and unusual situations as they were to build great championship teams. Why is Durant a villian for essentially doing the same thing?

Durant made a choice to go to the best possible situation for him, an option made possible by a convergence of circumstance and timing. It makes no sense for the one team that fits him best to somehow be off limits because it's too good of a situation.

Next summer, Kevin Durant (player option), Steph Curry, Russell Westbrook, Blake Griffin (player option, Chris Paul (player option), Gordon Hayward (player option), and Kyle Lowry (player option) all could be unrestricted free agents, and the salary cap is going to take another jump. Some of those players will stay with their current teams, but some will move. When it's all said and done, there may be another team or two with multiple stars that is a new powerhouse.

This is the way it plays out when free agency meets a huge increase in the salary cap. Don't blame Durant and the Warriors for taking advantage of that situation to make a decision that is beneficial to them both.

What bothers me, and I tried to hint at this in an earlier post, is that I feel like Durant is selling his own legacy short. I get that he wants a championship, and certainly playing with GS provides the most direct path to that goal. However, given Kevin's talent, and what he had already created, he could have written a much bigger story. If he had brought OKC a title, and I think there was a pretty good chance he could have, he could have been to OKC what Bird and Brady and Orr are to Boston. If (or when) he wins a championship in GS, then yeah, he has a ring, he ticked off that box, but he won't have the same legacy. He probably won't even get the love Steph gets. For a lesser player, or a declining player, a move like this might totally make sense, but for someone of KD's ability and accomplishments - I don't know, I just feel like he sold his possible legacy short....

Durant is a pussy, he couldn't come near holding any of the greats of the games jockstrap, hes a 6'11" version of George Gervin, who also couldn't defend for shit. The player that first made the Finals against Lebron couldn't take over a game back then and 9 years later he still can't do it in the clutch, same overated game, for all his gaudy stats I'd take a primetime Paul Pierce over Durant anyday, Pierce always had ganas, Durant has no balls and never grew them.

mrkleen09 wrote:Wanted to stop by and see what the board thought of this - glad to find this thread and some great contributions from many, particularly Outside.

The only thing I heard as a criticism of Durant was one that is probably meant to be a dig, but I took it to ring fairly true.

By moving to Golden State, Durant is in essence admitting he either cannot be or doesn't want to be "the man" on a championship caliber team.  GS is Currys team and by going there, KD admits he is OK being second fiddle.  

THIS is what Jordan, Bird, Magic and many others would never have gone for.  It isnt about necessarily playing with talented players or even accepting a trade - it is about being "THE MAN"-  In spite of it all, when KG and Ray came here, this was still Paul Pierce's team first.

Anyway - will be interesting to see to say the least.  Hope to get time to stop by here and there.  Best to you all.

mrkleen,

I hope all is going well with you. Regarding your take on the Celtics being Pierce's team first when KG was there, I'd be interested to know what others thought about that. Of course Pierce was the incumbent star, but I always thought KG is the one who put his imprint on those teams with his defense and ferocity. When I think of those teams, I think of KG first, but maybe I'm in the minority.

As far as Durant goes, I do think it's possible that he will be considered the primary star on the Warriors. Curry has no problem taking over games when he's in a zone, and that's happened more often over the past few seasons, but he's unusual as far as elite players go in that he revels in using his play to feed into a teammate's hot hand (usually Klay up to this point) and not being concerned about "getting his." He's also been perfectly happy to draw double-teams way out past the three-point line and pass out of it to create a four-on-three with the other players. I could see him being totally satisfied scoring 24 per game while Durant scores 28. The end result is that I could easily see Durant being considered the top player on the Warriors to media and other outsiders, even if the reality is that a portion of Durant's success is due to the attention that Curry garners. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

It's good to see you posting, even if only on occasion. Take care.