I don't think there is. The only reason there is a complaint is because both the team and the player are so good. The "If you can't beat em, join em" shot should apply to any western conference FA signed by GS and every eastern conf FA signed by Cle. The only reason we're hearing it now is that there was a team and a player that are both this good.
**** 2017 NBA Finals Thread ****
49,220 Views |
736 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Pumpkinhead
The Warriors are going to 'ruin' the NBA about as much as Nick Saban's era at Alabama is ruining SEC football. Not very much. They will have their run and probably win at least another NBA title or two, and then internal or external forces will come along, or injuries or age or whatever, and somebody new will take their place.Deluxe said:There's space between:DannyDuberstein said:
29 other teams are trying to sign the best players. Players across the league are trying to land in a spot where they can make the most money and win. This was no different. Bunch of sour grapes.
And I post this as someone who isn't a fan of the Warriors.
"Every team wants to be like the Warriors. SOUR GRAPES!"
and
"The Warriors are ruining the NBA!"
Lakers/Celtics had their runs in the 80's, Pistons and Bulls in the 90's, Lakers in early 2000's, Spurs had a consistent run of being good to great with Pop & Duncan & friends, Miami Heat had a run, and now it is the Cavs vs. Warriors NBA era. Which I'm betting we will see those same two teams in the NBA Finals for the fourth straight year next June.
Lebron, the best player in the world (but for the sake of the topic we'll say a top 5 player)..... went to a garbage team with a young star in Kyrie and got them to the finals in year 1 against the start of a super team, beat possibly the greatest team of all time in year 2, and lost to that team again in year 3.
KD, a top 5 player in the world.....went to arguably the greatest team of all time, with the most regular season wins ever, that didn't lose any other superstars.
No one is saying the Cavs don't have a top level roster or it's Lebron and a bunch of scrubs like the mid aughts....that team is stacked.
But the moves were different. That's why it's getting a slightly different reaction.
KD, a top 5 player in the world.....went to arguably the greatest team of all time, with the most regular season wins ever, that didn't lose any other superstars.
No one is saying the Cavs don't have a top level roster or it's Lebron and a bunch of scrubs like the mid aughts....that team is stacked.
But the moves were different. That's why it's getting a slightly different reaction.
They just are not on the same level at all. Cavs are a superteam, yes. However, Golden State, is the best team of all time.
Quote:
don't think there is. The only reason there is a complaint is because both the team and the player are so good. The "If you can't beat em, join em" shot should apply to any western conference FA signed by GS and every eastern conf FA signed by Cle. But the only reason we haven't heard it before now is that there finally was a team and a player that are this good.
The reason we never had this happen before like this is the mega cap spike + fantastically low contract for Curry created a unique opportunity for Golden State and Durant to get married with minimal pain and suffering required on GSW's part to make room for him.
It was unique situation, a lucky situation, and can't really be replicated
Yeah, I agree. Just saying that Cavs were not just LeBron and a bunch of scrubs. That was a loaded Cavs roster that got steamrolled because the Warriors are simply that good.Saint Pablo said:
They just are not on the same level at all. Cavs are a superteam, yes. However, Golden State, is the best team of all time.
Plenty of grey area and nuance in the KD/Dubs takes. Lots of justifiable opinions. No need to say one extreme end of the spectrum is the only way of looking at it.
Cavs and Warriors are very far apart as far as super teams go.
Kyrie is an All-Star, but he isn't top 5 at his position. He gets lost easily on defense.
* CP3
* Harden
* Russ
* Curry
* Wall
* IT3
It's pretty much understood all those guys are better than Kyrie. You can make a great case for Lilliard, Conley, and Bledsoe, too.
Love is a good player and an all-star, but he isn't really special. I don't think he is nearly as good as Bosh was for Miami.
Cleveland is a guy that may be the GOAT plus a borderline all-star PF and all-star, but not top 5 PG.
Draymond was the only PF to make an All-NBA team this year, plus he probably wins DPOY. Klay would probably be the second best player on the Cavs, but he is the 4th best on the Warriors.
Bron didn't create a Superteam in Cleveland, but he didn't join a team devoid of talent, either. But that is nothing like the talent on the Warriors.
Kyrie is an All-Star, but he isn't top 5 at his position. He gets lost easily on defense.
* CP3
* Harden
* Russ
* Curry
* Wall
* IT3
It's pretty much understood all those guys are better than Kyrie. You can make a great case for Lilliard, Conley, and Bledsoe, too.
Love is a good player and an all-star, but he isn't really special. I don't think he is nearly as good as Bosh was for Miami.
Cleveland is a guy that may be the GOAT plus a borderline all-star PF and all-star, but not top 5 PG.
Draymond was the only PF to make an All-NBA team this year, plus he probably wins DPOY. Klay would probably be the second best player on the Cavs, but he is the 4th best on the Warriors.
Bron didn't create a Superteam in Cleveland, but he didn't join a team devoid of talent, either. But that is nothing like the talent on the Warriors.
You mean it's more like when LeBron went to the Heat with his buddies?Bunk Moreland said:
Lebron, the best player in the world (but for the sake of the topic we'll say a top 5 player)..... went to a garbage team with a young star in Kyrie and got them to the finals in year 1 against the start of a super team, beat possibly the greatest team of all time in year 2, and lost to that team again in year 3.
KD, a top 5 player in the world.....went to arguably the greatest team of all time, with the most regular season wins ever, that didn't lose any other superstars.
No one is saying the Cavs don't have a top level roster or it's Lebron and a bunch of scrubs like the mid aughts....that team is stacked.
But the moves were different. That's why it's getting a slightly different reaction.
biobioprof said:You mean it's more like when LeBron went to the Heat with his buddies?Bunk Moreland said:
Lebron, the best player in the world (but for the sake of the topic we'll say a top 5 player)..... went to a garbage team with a young star in Kyrie and got them to the finals in year 1 against the start of a super team, beat possibly the greatest team of all time in year 2, and lost to that team again in year 3.
KD, a top 5 player in the world.....went to arguably the greatest team of all time, with the most regular season wins ever, that didn't lose any other superstars.
No one is saying the Cavs don't have a top level roster or it's Lebron and a bunch of scrubs like the mid aughts....that team is stacked.
But the moves were different. That's why it's getting a slightly different reaction.
Yes. Joining a mid 40 win team is getting closer to joining the best team in the history of the NBA...but I'd say it's closer to the crapfest that Cleveland was still, because in both situations 2 stars came to a team with one and they had to learn how to play together.
KD walked on to one of the top 3 or 4 teams of all time that have had a core playing together for 3-5 years by that point.
ESPN talking heads have stated multiple times that current NBA players have said that they love to watch Westbrook play but would hate to be on his team.
The whole funny thing about this Durant bashing is that we have no idea if any other superstar player [fill in name here] would have not made the exact same decision as Durant to leave Westbrook and go play for the Warriors for the same money.
Posters just sit here and opine that 'oh, Tim Duncan/Kobe/LeBron/some dude in 80's/my cousin Vinny wouldn't have done that! He would either have stuck with frustrating Westbrook or gone to a worse team to deliberately make it harder on himself.
The whole funny thing about this Durant bashing is that we have no idea if any other superstar player [fill in name here] would have not made the exact same decision as Durant to leave Westbrook and go play for the Warriors for the same money.
Posters just sit here and opine that 'oh, Tim Duncan/Kobe/LeBron/some dude in 80's/my cousin Vinny wouldn't have done that! He would either have stuck with frustrating Westbrook or gone to a worse team to deliberately make it harder on himself.
Pumpkinhead said:
ESPN talking heads have stated multiple times that current NBA players have said that they love to watch Westbrook play but would hate to be on his team.
The whole funny thing about this Durant bashing is that we have no idea if any other superstar player [fill in name here] would have not made the exact same decision as Durant to leave Westbrook and go play for the Warriors for the same money.
Posters just sit here and opine that 'oh, Tim Duncan/Kobe/LeBron/some dude in 80's/my cousin Vinny wouldn't have done that! He would either have stuck with frustrating Westbrook or gone to a worse team to deliberately make it harder on himself.
Duncan, one of my all time favorites, had one boot out the door - on his way to Orlando at one point.
And he didn't even have a Westbrook to escape.
Pumpkinhead said:
ESPN talking heads have stated multiple times that current NBA players have said that they love to watch Westbrook play but would hate to be on his team.
The whole funny thing about this Durant bashing is that we have no idea if any other superstar player [fill in name here] would have not made the exact same decision as Durant to leave Westbrook and go play for the Warriors for the same money.
Posters just sit here and opine that 'oh, Tim Duncan/Kobe/LeBron/some dude in 80's/my cousin Vinny wouldn't have done that! He would either have stuck with frustrating Westbrook or gone to a worse team to deliberately make it harder on himself.
No opinion needed. Duncan, Kobe and the stars in the 80s did not switch teams to join up with the best team in the league. That's a fact.
Guitarsoup said:Pumpkinhead said:
ESPN talking heads have stated multiple times that current NBA players have said that they love to watch Westbrook play but would hate to be on his team.
The whole funny thing about this Durant bashing is that we have no idea if any other superstar player [fill in name here] would have not made the exact same decision as Durant to leave Westbrook and go play for the Warriors for the same money.
Posters just sit here and opine that 'oh, Tim Duncan/Kobe/LeBron/some dude in 80's/my cousin Vinny wouldn't have done that! He would either have stuck with frustrating Westbrook or gone to a worse team to deliberately make it harder on himself.
No opinion needed. Duncan, Kobe and the stars in the 80s did not switch teams to join up with the best team in the league. That's a fact.
Kobe did worse than leave. That's a fact. Read Phil Jackson's book
How come nobody hates on Shaq, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Charles Barkley, Clyde Drexler, KG, Jesus Shuttlesworth, etc?
Lebron and KD didn't invent jumping ship for a 'ship
Lebron and KD didn't invent jumping ship for a 'ship
They never opened a chocolate bar in modern day 2016 NBA and found a 'Leave Westbrook and join the Warriors without taking any paycut' golden ticket inside either. But let's all just keep bashing Durant that he made a decision that most other superstars would not have made in identical circumstances.Guitarsoup said:Pumpkinhead said:
ESPN talking heads have stated multiple times that current NBA players have said that they love to watch Westbrook play but would hate to be on his team.
The whole funny thing about this Durant bashing is that we have no idea if any other superstar player [fill in name here] would have not made the exact same decision as Durant to leave Westbrook and go play for the Warriors for the same money.
Posters just sit here and opine that 'oh, Tim Duncan/Kobe/LeBron/some dude in 80's/my cousin Vinny wouldn't have done that! He would either have stuck with frustrating Westbrook or gone to a worse team to deliberately make it harder on himself.
No opinion needed. Duncan, Kobe and the stars in the 80s did not switch teams to join up with the best team in the league. That's a fact.
Head Ninja In Charge
Joined:
Oct 10, 2005
Posts:
19,026
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To be honest, using anything related to Phil Jackson as supporting documentation is worth next to nothing these days.Quote:
Kobe did worse than leave. That's a fact. Read Phil Jackson's book
Head Ninja In Charge
Joined:
Oct 10, 2005
Posts:
19,026
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shaq, Malone, Payton, and Barkley get plenty of criticism for their late-career moves. Clyde and KG were traded. Ray Allen was traded to Boston and that was before Garnett got there. Also, he got plenty of ****, from his own teammates no less, when he went to Miami.Rusty GCS said:
How come nobody hates on Shaq, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Charles Barkley, Clyde Drexler, KG, Jesus Shuttlesworth, etc?
Lebron and KD didn't invent jumping ship for a 'ship
Either way, none of the guys you mentioned were in their primes when they made all of their moves. Both LeBron and Durant are/were.
Just a note on KG to Boston, he had to agree to that trade. I know it was technically a trade, but it doesn't happen unless Garnett approved it. According to some on this board, if Garnett had been a real man who wanted real challenges in life, he'd have said no to the trade to Boston and stayed where he was until retirement.Head Ninja In Charge said:Shaq, Malone, Payton, and Barkley get plenty of criticism for their late-career moves. Clyde and KG were traded. Ray Allen was traded to Boston and that was before Garnett got there. Also, he got plenty of ****, from his own teammates no less, when he went to Miami.Rusty GCS said:
How come nobody hates on Shaq, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Charles Barkley, Clyde Drexler, KG, Jesus Shuttlesworth, etc?
Lebron and KD didn't invent jumping ship for a 'ship
My issue with Durant is that he went to a team within his conference, that he had just barely lost too and that had already won a championship and even set the nba record for wins. Durant is by most counts the second best player in the nba (heck he was arrogant enough to say it was just him and LeBron last night).
He could have gone to probably 10 different teams and with a good work ethic and a break or two could have won a finals and had earned much more respect in the process. Durant took out the element of competition in his championship run by stacking the deck like he did, which shows a lack of respect for the game, for his fellow nba players, for the fans and for himself. Like a poster said above, it would be like Johnny transferring to Alabama.
Instead of giving himself a reasonable shot but still a challenge, Durant completely stacked the deck to the point of the warriors winning being a foregone conclusion. It was what Lebron did in Miami but on steroids. No other move in NBA history was even close to what Lebron did by going to Miami in his prime and yet what Durant did is so exponentially worse that it is barely comparable.
Durant has a ring now but I definitely don't give him an ounce of credit for carrying a team to a championship. You put any all-star on the warriors in exchange for Durant and the warriors still win a championship. In my mind there is a difference between having a ring and being a champion. Durant has a ring, but isn't a champion.
He could have gone to probably 10 different teams and with a good work ethic and a break or two could have won a finals and had earned much more respect in the process. Durant took out the element of competition in his championship run by stacking the deck like he did, which shows a lack of respect for the game, for his fellow nba players, for the fans and for himself. Like a poster said above, it would be like Johnny transferring to Alabama.
Instead of giving himself a reasonable shot but still a challenge, Durant completely stacked the deck to the point of the warriors winning being a foregone conclusion. It was what Lebron did in Miami but on steroids. No other move in NBA history was even close to what Lebron did by going to Miami in his prime and yet what Durant did is so exponentially worse that it is barely comparable.
Durant has a ring now but I definitely don't give him an ounce of credit for carrying a team to a championship. You put any all-star on the warriors in exchange for Durant and the warriors still win a championship. In my mind there is a difference between having a ring and being a champion. Durant has a ring, but isn't a champion.
Can someone please explain a little more why this is like Johnny transferring to Bama? I don't think that's a fair comparison because college and rules around it are not even remotely close to what professional sports is like. Also....Johnny beat Bama. Maybe I'm missing the point though. That's why I'm asking.
Head Ninja In Charge said:To be honest, using anything related to Phil Jackson as supporting documentation is worth next to nothing these days.Quote:
Kobe did worse than leave. That's a fact. Read Phil Jackson's book
That's very true. In fact he clearly stated that kobe was the reason that he could never coach again. 2 months after I put the book down, he was coaching.
But still the dynamic that he described between Shaq and kobe was very believable.
He said that he would instruct Shaq during practice and Shaq would argue and get in his face. Then game day came around and Shaq would do what he had been told.
When he would teach kobe at practice, kobe would say, "yeah, sure, no problem". Then on game day he would ignore the coach.
He went on to describe the situation when kobe went to the main office and said Shaq goes or I go. Shaq was obviously the much better player, but kobe was the future of the show time Lakers (part 2) for years to come.
Well ****ing said.GatorAg03 said:
My issue with Durant is that he went to a team within his conference, that he had just barely lost too and that had already won a championship and even set the nba record for wins. Durant is by most counts the second best player in the nba (heck he was arrogant enough to say it was just him and LeBron last night).
He could have gone to probably 10 different teams and with a good work ethic and a break or two could have won a finals and had earned much more respect in the process. Durant took out the element of competition in his championship run by stacking the deck like he did, which shows a lack of respect for the game, for his fellow nba players, for the fans and for himself. Like a poster said above, it would be like Johnny transferring to Alabama.
Instead of giving himself a reasonable shot but still a challenge, Durant completely stacked the deck to the point of the warriors winning being a foregone conclusion. It was what Lebron did in Miami but on steroids. No other move in NBA history was even close to what Lebron did by going to Miami in his prime and yet what Durant did is so exponentially worse that it is barely comparable.
Durant has a ring now but I definitely don't give him an ounce of credit for carrying a team to a championship. You put any all-star on the warriors in exchange for Durant and the warriors still win a championship. In my mind there is a difference between having a ring and being a champion. Durant has a ring, but isn't a champion.
Durant lost a ton of respect from tons of NBA fans with this move last of his last year. There is no doubt about it. He was up 3-1. 3-1 in a WCFinals, and they choked it! I think it is arguably one of the bigger chokes in NBA history given the circumstances. And then Golden State did the same thing but at least LeBron was on the other side, he's the best player in the world. And instead of going at it again, Durant joins the Warriors.
The NBA isn't college. Most players are playing for their team & themselves and will leave for a better situation. Why would he choose to go to a worse team and make it harder on himself? That would be like you turning down Google to take the same job at Yahoo so you could say you did it yourself. It would be dumb.GatorAg03 said:
My issue with Durant is that he went to a team within his conference, that he had just barely lost too and that had already won a championship and even set the nba record for wins. Durant is by most counts the second best player in the nba (heck he was arrogant enough to say it was just him and LeBron last night).
He could have gone to probably 10 different teams and with a good work ethic and a break or two could have won a finals and had earned much more respect in the process. Durant took out the element of competition in his championship run by stacking the deck like he did, which shows a lack of respect for the game, for his fellow nba players, for the fans and for himself. Like a poster said above, it would be like Johnny transferring to Alabama.
Instead of giving himself a reasonable shot but still a challenge, Durant completely stacked the deck to the point of the warriors winning being a foregone conclusion. It was what Lebron did in Miami but on steroids. No other move in NBA history was even close to what Lebron did by going to Miami in his prime and yet what Durant did is so exponentially worse that it is barely comparable.
Durant has a ring now but I definitely don't give him an ounce of credit for carrying a team to a championship. You put any all-star on the warriors in exchange for Durant and the warriors still win a championship. In my mind there is a difference between having a ring and being a champion. Durant has a ring, but isn't a champion.
Edit - when I say team, I mean teammates. They don't usually have the same affinity for our city or franchise as the fans. This is their job, not hobby.
The argument that he should go someplace tougher just to make the bar higher is beyond moronic. Players don't do that in any sport. It's the dumbest, most unrealistic argument one can make in this KD debate.
IMO the only room for criticism would have been had he gone there and stepped back into some sort of role player. But he didn't. He stepped up and led them to a title as the best player they put on the floor in this series
IMO the only room for criticism would have been had he gone there and stepped back into some sort of role player. But he didn't. He stepped up and led them to a title as the best player they put on the floor in this series
Slow down there, Kyrie is the best ball handler, and finisher in the entire league. Yes he doesn't play defense, but CP3 is the only one on that list that's considered a "good" defender. There is absolutely no case to be had that Conley and Bledsoe are even in the same hemisphere as Kyrie. The dude averaged over 29 points a game in the finals with one of the league's premier on ball defenders chasing him around for the full 48. Not to mention he is an exceptional 3 pt shooter. Lilliard is interesting, I think him and Kyrie are very similar in terms of skill set, but Kyrie has shown it at the absolute biggest stage.Guitarsoup said:
Cavs and Warriors are very far apart as far as super teams go.
Kyrie is an All-Star, but he isn't top 5 at his position. He gets lost easily on defense.
* CP3
* Harden
* Russ
* Curry
* Wall
* IT3
It's pretty much understood all those guys are better than Kyrie. You can make a great case for Lilliard, Conley, and Bledsoe, too.
Love is a good player and an all-star, but he isn't really special. I don't think he is nearly as good as Bosh was for Miami.
Cleveland is a guy that may be the GOAT plus a borderline all-star PF and all-star, but not top 5 PG.
Draymond was the only PF to make an All-NBA team this year, plus he probably wins DPOY. Klay would probably be the second best player on the Cavs, but he is the 4th best on the Warriors.
Bron didn't create a Superteam in Cleveland, but he didn't join a team devoid of talent, either. But that is nothing like the talent on the Warriors.
Haha. I literally typed out this exact comparison in my last post, but removed it before posting. I worded it more like "If you had a job at Yahoo! and you had a coworker that you didn't enjoy working with, and had the opportunity to go work for Google with a group that works really well together as a team, would you take it?"QBCade said:The NBA isn't college. Most players are playing for their team & themselves and will leave for a better situation. Why would he choose to go to a worse team and make it harder on himself? That would be like you turning down Google to take the same job at Yahoo so you could say you did it yourself. It would be dumb.GatorAg03 said:
My issue with Durant is that he went to a team within his conference, that he had just barely lost too and that had already won a championship and even set the nba record for wins. Durant is by most counts the second best player in the nba (heck he was arrogant enough to say it was just him and LeBron last night).
He could have gone to probably 10 different teams and with a good work ethic and a break or two could have won a finals and had earned much more respect in the process. Durant took out the element of competition in his championship run by stacking the deck like he did, which shows a lack of respect for the game, for his fellow nba players, for the fans and for himself. Like a poster said above, it would be like Johnny transferring to Alabama.
Instead of giving himself a reasonable shot but still a challenge, Durant completely stacked the deck to the point of the warriors winning being a foregone conclusion. It was what Lebron did in Miami but on steroids. No other move in NBA history was even close to what Lebron did by going to Miami in his prime and yet what Durant did is so exponentially worse that it is barely comparable.
Durant has a ring now but I definitely don't give him an ounce of credit for carrying a team to a championship. You put any all-star on the warriors in exchange for Durant and the warriors still win a championship. In my mind there is a difference between having a ring and being a champion. Durant has a ring, but isn't a champion.
Edit - when I say team, I mean teammates. They don't usually have the same affinity for our city or franchise as the fans. This is their job, not hobby.
I think people mostly don't view the athletes as doing a job. It's them performing for our own benefit, and whatever makes it less enjoyable for me is wrong and messed up. I think there's definitely a valid argument here in that they wouldn't have these jobs if people didn't want to watch. But most of the takes I've seen against him I just don't think are all that valid. Especially considering I believe that most rational people in his position would choose to do the exact same thing. Whether they want to tell you that or not. But here I go making assumptions about people I don't know.
One other item I'd add is that, in spite of winning 73 games last year, GS was still a flawed team in 2016. People are acting like they were already indestructible. They weren't. They caved. So they did what other teams do - revise their makeup to address the flaws. Some good players are gone from that team in the process.
And KD did what other FA's do - go to a good situation where you will get paid and can make a significant impact.
And KD did what other FA's do - go to a good situation where you will get paid and can make a significant impact.
Obviously never seen Space Jam...Quote:
Why would he choose to go to a worse team and make it harder on himself?
Quote:
Durant has a ring, but isn't a champion.
If Durant had instead gone to a 67-win Spurs team last summer (who went 40-1 at home) to join All-Stars Kawhi & Aldridge and an organization with a strong recent history of success, and then won the 2017 NBA title with San Antonio, why do I get the feeling you'd be very excited and talking about how great it was that Durant had finally won an NBA title?
And the Spurs DID try to go get Durant last summer. But they got out-recruited by the Warriors.
That's not really the argument. There were several teams he could have had legitimate opportunities to win a championship, simply by joining that team. Would it have been more difficult than going to Golden State? Probably but Golden State wouldn't have been as invincible this year without him, so who really knows. You yourself said that they were flawed.Quote:
The argument that he should go someplace tougher just to make the bar higher is beyond moronic. Players don't do that in any sport. It's the dumbest, most unrealistic argument one can make in this KD debate.
Obviously as a Spurs fan, I would have been totally okay with this....Pumpkinhead said:
If Durant had instead gone to a 67-win Spurs team last summer (who went 40-1 at home) to join All-Stars Kawhi & Aldridge and an organization with a strong recent history of success, and then won the 2017 NBA title with San Antonio, why do I get the feeling you'd be very excited and talking about how great it was that Durant had finally won an NBA title?
And the Spurs DID try to go get Durant last summer. But they got out-recruited by the Warriors.
The NBA is based around competition. It is healthy for the league and having that real competition and how they respond and rise above their peers is what makes superstars and champions. It is not a normal business. The NBA is there because of the fans, who view it and who determine who the superstars are for their actions on and off the court. When we have a league where one team is guaranteed to win and that competition is removed, then you become the harlem globetrotters not the NBA.
It isn't a normal business, so comparing it to google or yahoo is missing the mark completely.
What Durant did made the warriors closer to the globetrotters (a rigged system without competition where one team is all but guaranteed to win) than it is going to google over yahoo.
Again, you can tell me all you want about how it was a good, logical business move for Durant and I won't argue any of that. However, fans are absolutely allowed to form their own opinions on if Durant's championship is cheapened and use that to determine his legacy as a super star. I know for me e could real off 4 or 5 straight championships with the warriors and I won't have him anywhere near an all-time great (top 10 type) player due to the route he took.
It isn't a normal business, so comparing it to google or yahoo is missing the mark completely.
What Durant did made the warriors closer to the globetrotters (a rigged system without competition where one team is all but guaranteed to win) than it is going to google over yahoo.
Again, you can tell me all you want about how it was a good, logical business move for Durant and I won't argue any of that. However, fans are absolutely allowed to form their own opinions on if Durant's championship is cheapened and use that to determine his legacy as a super star. I know for me e could real off 4 or 5 straight championships with the warriors and I won't have him anywhere near an all-time great (top 10 type) player due to the route he took.
Durant is clearly a superstar player, almost universally regarded as a top-4 player in the entire world, and if he wins a bunch of NBA titles then he will go down as one of the all-time greats by the mainstream sports media. You personally can feel like you won't see him as an 'All time great', but his legacy will absolutely be written that way. And he will make a billion dollars off of his success.GatorAg03 said:
The NBA is based around competition. It is healthy for the league and having that real competition and how they respond and rise above their peers is what makes superstars and champions. It is not a normal business. The NBA is there because of the fans, who view it and who determine who the superstars are for their actions on and off the court. When we have a league where one team is guaranteed to win and that competition is removed, then you become the harlem globetrotters not the NBA.
It isn't a normal business, so comparing it to google or yahoo is missing the mark completely.
What Durant did made the warriors closer to the globetrotters (a rigged system without competition where one team is all but guaranteed to win) than it is going to google over yahoo.
Again, you can tell me all you want about how it was a good, logical business move for Durant and I won't argue any of that. However, fans are absolutely allowed to form their own opinions on if Durant's championship is cheapened and use that to determine his legacy as a super star. I know for me e could real off 4 or 5 straight championships with the warriors and I won't have him anywhere near an all-time great (top 10 type) player due to the route he took.
Because the legacy of superstars who don't have NBA titles is always less than those who got them. And the more rings the better. 'It don't mean a thing without the ring' truly defines the pressure that these best of the best NBA players are feeling to cement their place in history. And they have a VERY narrow biological clock window to make their statement.
Well the mainstream sport media was a big factor in ripping his decision to make the move. Including a ton of former players and even all-time greats.
So are they right or wrong? Pretty ironic you want to discount the mainstream media view on it being a cheap move that removes competition, while pointing to them to determine his championship legacy.
So are they right or wrong? Pretty ironic you want to discount the mainstream media view on it being a cheap move that removes competition, while pointing to them to determine his championship legacy.