crzymdups wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Durant passed on 53mil to join the Warriors. There is nothing you can really do about that. The players are independent contractors. Can't stop them from playing where they want to play when they are free agents.

He's really only passing up on 3 mil. He will opt out and get a better long term deal. Agreed that the only question was his mental toughness since he went there in pursuit of a lesser role and decreased accountability.

I think he was frustrated by Westbrook. It seemed to be an overreaction to them blowing a 3-1 lead. But also, maybe the thought that if they couldn't get by GSW fully healthy with a 3-1 lead when Curry was clearly limited, they never would.

That said - Durant's reasoning isn't really going to impact the other owners' reaction. Hopefully Silver can explain it that way, but I could really see it leading to a lockout. And other people involved in the league are saying the same thing.

A strike seems like more likely possibility, as the players gave up 6% of revenue in the last CBA negotiations and the owners struck it rich immediately after, but given the money they're now very publicly getting, that too will be a difficult PR hill to climb.

Knickoftime wrote:

simrud wrote:The truth is that the top players are all severely underpaid and a lot of the middling and bottom level players are extremely overpaid - the market is inefficient because, gasp, it is a self regulating monopoly run by 2 governing bodies - owners and the players union. Neither side has any interest in what's best long term.

Both sides are getting filthy rich for at least the next 9 years.

What is best, again?

But that's OK, keep voting or Sanders in the primaries because maybe socialism will work this time.

Which primaries would that be?

The owners are getting more than what they should be getting, and so are the non-superstar players, of course to a smaller degree. Mostly the owners are just underpaying the players in general because of how much of the team value is coming from the top 2-3 guys on the roster and using the rest of the players to help them with the robbery - that's kind of how socialism works - the elite few band together to take away what's not theirs from the actual wealth producers while throwing a few bones to the brain washed masses who are content to get their bread and entertainment - Julius Caesar pioneered the approach.

And I'm sure Bernie is still running for something somewhere in his mind lol

crzymdups wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/amicohoops/status/750752462118715392

Whether it's true or not, the Durant move has created unrest on both the player side and the owner side. It's not good heading into labor negotiations.

The obvious counter to this is the Lebron formed the Heatles and it coincided with an unprecedented rise in popularity of the league and a $24 billion tv deal.

Will the money from the tv deal be enough to keep everyone happy? Or will there be squabbling about issues like competitive balance? I think it could well be the latter. Especially since competitive balance will be tied to closely to issues of player movement in free agency, Max salaries, franchise player tags, etc.

Jordan's Bulls won 6 of 8 titles and it was the best thing to ever happen to the league.

Houston won the two in between and then you had San Antonio and the Lakers for 3 in a row.

People are reacting in the heat of the moment, as they do now. Anybody with a thought can find a venue to voice their opinion and the venue makes it seem profound to them so they want to say something that sounds profound. Nobody just wants to say it sucks but whatever. They want to correctly gauge the impact.

I don't like Durant to the Warriors either, but this is lot to do about nothing. It'll pass after people get over their 15 mins of profoundness inclinations.

fishmike wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/amicohoops/status/750752462118715392

Whether it's true or not, the Durant move has created unrest on both the player side and the owner side. It's not good heading into labor negotiations.

The obvious counter to this is the Lebron formed the Heatles and it coincided with an unprecedented rise in popularity of the league and a $24 billion tv deal.

Will the money from the tv deal be enough to keep everyone happy? Or will there be squabbling about issues like competitive balance? I think it could well be the latter. Especially since competitive balance will be tied to closely to issues of player movement in free agency, Max salaries, franchise player tags, etc.

Jordan's Bulls won 6 of 8 titles and it was the best thing to ever happen to the league.

Houston won the two in between and then you had San Antonio and the Lakers for 3 in a row.

People are reacting in the heat of the moment, as they do now. Anybody with a thought can find a venue to voice their opinion and the venue makes it seem profound to them so they want to say something that sounds profound. Nobody just wants to say it sucks but whatever. They want to correctly gauge the impact.

I don't like Durant to the Warriors either, but this is lot to do about nothing. It'll pass after people get over their 15 mins of profoundness inclinations.

I was just thinking this.. when has there been competitive balance in the NBA? Ive only been watching since the late 80s but I have never seen it. Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, more Bulls, lots of Spurs, Lakers... I mean its always been a couple of top teams year after year. The NFL this is not.

True - but that doesn't stop some of the newer owners from wanting it. Ken Berger and Wojo wrote a lot about this in the last lockout. There's a lot of younger owners in the league now and they want parity. They don't want to lose their superstars they draft to super teams, etc.

I don't disagree with what you're saying - I'm just saying the owners have their own perspective and they're the ones who can pull the trigger on this lockout.

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/amicohoops/status/750752462118715392

Whether it's true or not, the Durant move has created unrest on both the player side and the owner side. It's not good heading into labor negotiations.

The obvious counter to this is the Lebron formed the Heatles and it coincided with an unprecedented rise in popularity of the league and a $24 billion tv deal.

Will the money from the tv deal be enough to keep everyone happy? Or will there be squabbling about issues like competitive balance? I think it could well be the latter. Especially since competitive balance will be tied to closely to issues of player movement in free agency, Max salaries, franchise player tags, etc.

Jordan's Bulls won 6 of 8 titles and it was the best thing to ever happen to the league.

Houston won the two in between and then you had San Antonio and the Lakers for 3 in a row.

People are reacting in the heat of the moment, as they do now. Anybody with a thought can find a venue to voice their opinion and the venue makes it seem profound to them so they want to say something that sounds profound. Nobody just wants to say it sucks but whatever. They want to correctly gauge the impact.

I don't like Durant to the Warriors either, but this is lot to do about nothing. It'll pass after people get over their 15 mins of profoundness inclinations.

I was just thinking this.. when has there been competitive balance in the NBA? Ive only been watching since the late 80s but I have never seen it. Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, more Bulls, lots of Spurs, Lakers... I mean its always been a couple of top teams year after year. The NFL this is not.

True - but that doesn't stop some of the newer owners from wanting it. Ken Berger and Wojo wrote a lot about this in the last lockout. There's a lot of younger owners in the league now and they want parity. They don't want to lose their superstars they draft to super teams, etc.

I don't disagree with what you're saying - I'm just saying the owners have their own perspective and they're the ones who can pull the trigger on this lockout.

Good luck to the owners tying to win the PR war that they should get to more control where these mostly young black men get to play their entire careers, unlike any other sport.

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/amicohoops/status/750752462118715392

Whether it's true or not, the Durant move has created unrest on both the player side and the owner side. It's not good heading into labor negotiations.

The obvious counter to this is the Lebron formed the Heatles and it coincided with an unprecedented rise in popularity of the league and a $24 billion tv deal.

Will the money from the tv deal be enough to keep everyone happy? Or will there be squabbling about issues like competitive balance? I think it could well be the latter. Especially since competitive balance will be tied to closely to issues of player movement in free agency, Max salaries, franchise player tags, etc.

Jordan's Bulls won 6 of 8 titles and it was the best thing to ever happen to the league.

Houston won the two in between and then you had San Antonio and the Lakers for 3 in a row.

People are reacting in the heat of the moment, as they do now. Anybody with a thought can find a venue to voice their opinion and the venue makes it seem profound to them so they want to say something that sounds profound. Nobody just wants to say it sucks but whatever. They want to correctly gauge the impact.

I don't like Durant to the Warriors either, but this is lot to do about nothing. It'll pass after people get over their 15 mins of profoundness inclinations.

I was just thinking this.. when has there been competitive balance in the NBA? Ive only been watching since the late 80s but I have never seen it. Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, more Bulls, lots of Spurs, Lakers... I mean its always been a couple of top teams year after year. The NFL this is not.

True - but that doesn't stop some of the newer owners from wanting it. Ken Berger and Wojo wrote a lot about this in the last lockout. There's a lot of younger owners in the league now and they want parity. They don't want to lose their superstars they draft to super teams, etc.

I don't disagree with what you're saying - I'm just saying the owners have their own perspective and they're the ones who can pull the trigger on this lockout.

Good luck to the owners tying to win the PR war that they should get to more control where these mostly young black men get to play their entire careers, unlike any other sport.

I don't wish them any luck in that endeavor.

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Its more of a question of Durant's mental toughness then the NBA structure.

He's tough enough to pursue a championship take a lesser role on a team already heavily favored to win a championship and not care what critics on message boards think.
FWIW, the Warriors probably wouldn't have won any championships if the Cavs had been healthy 2 years ago. They need Durant and if he helps them win championships, he'll definitely be in the HOF and remembered well. Once you're in the HOF, your critics don't really have anything of merit to say anyway.

I edited the above. No need to glorify laziness and complacence.

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Its more of a question of Durant's mental toughness then the NBA structure.

He's tough enough to pursue a championship take a lesser role on a team already heavily favored to win a championship and not care what critics on message boards think.
FWIW, the Warriors probably wouldn't have won any championships if the Cavs had been healthy 2 years ago. They need Durant and if he helps them win championships, he'll definitely be in the HOF and remembered well. Once you're in the HOF, your critics don't really have anything of merit to say anyway.

I edited the above. No need to glorify laziness and complacence.

That's crazy. There's no such thing as an easy road to an NBA championship or a way to be lazy and win championships. He helped his odds compared to staying in OKC but still will have to work extremely hard and play MVP level ball. I can't think of any line of work where you do your job well and help your organization and you don't get credit just because the organization was good beforehand. I can't think of any area where you're supposed to join a bad organization so that you can get credit for turning it around, or even just where you're supposed to stay away from the top organizations. The metrics (and perhaps eyeball test) both allow you to examine how well the player is doing independently of his team. It's possible that a player is (a) on a great team and (b) played great and deserves a lot of credit. So if GSW wins a championship, it will not be difficult to get an idea of how much he is contributing and how much credit he deserves.

His mental toughness was already in question prior to this decision. OKC has been one of the most well run organizations in the NBA for almost a decade. KD leaving OKC isn't because OKC isn't capable of putting enough talent around KD to win championships.

GSW before KD also proven the could be taken.

So owners are going to lock the players out so they can hold onto players like Durant longer, until THEY don't want them anymore like Wade.

Yeah, that'll work. Foolproof.

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Its more of a question of Durant's mental toughness then the NBA structure.

He's tough enough to pursue a championship take a lesser role on a team already heavily favored to win a championship and not care what critics on message boards think.
FWIW, the Warriors probably wouldn't have won any championships if the Cavs had been healthy 2 years ago. They need Durant and if he helps them win championships, he'll definitely be in the HOF and remembered well. Once you're in the HOF, your critics don't really have anything of merit to say anyway.

I edited the above. No need to glorify laziness and complacence.

That's crazy. There's no such thing as an easy road to an NBA championship or a way to be lazy and win championships. He helped his odds compared to staying in OKC but still will have to work extremely hard and play MVP level ball. I can't think of any line of work where you do your job well and help your organization and you don't get credit just because the organization was good beforehand. I can't think of any area where you're supposed to join a bad organization so that you can get credit for turning it around, or even just where you're supposed to stay away from the top organizations. The metrics (and perhaps eyeball test) both allow you to examine how well the player is doing independently of his team. It's possible that a player is (a) on a great team and (b) played great and deserves a lot of credit. So if GSW wins a championship, it will not be difficult to get an idea of how much he is contributing and how much credit he deserves.

It's not really that crazy. He basically said that he didn't want to feel as if he needed to carry the team at times, not be. That is kind of quitting no matter how you look at it. Obviously, he will still need to put in work but he was looking for less responsibility among other things.

I agree with we will need to see how he contributes. This will be especially difficult in this situation given they were favs to win it all to begin with. That said, it is possible he emerges as the team leader. However, I am highly skeptical that he has any interest in doing that.