SwishAndDish13 wrote:

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.

I just can't bring myself to hating on Durant about this. He gave it a good run at OKC and for a number of reasons he's ready to try something new. I guess I'm not mad because first off, he'a still taking a gamble and while amazing on paper it still has to work on the floor. Secondly, just because doesn't want need to the alpha, he's weak? Maybe like LeBron he wants to stretch out in a new environment and get inspired as a player. Also the Bay is probably a lot more interesing place for a millionaire than OKC. Hobnob w tech royalty and set up the groundwork for being a venture calitalist after he hangs up his sneakers.

But maybe it's just me knowing I'd pick the Bay Area with great coworkers over everyone up my ass in Oklahoma.

I.e. teams can designate players where if they sign with someone else they get that teams first or second round pick.

Another option is draft picks coincide with player salary. I.E. Durant would cost the Warriors 2 non consecutive 1st round draft picks (probably the ceiling cost for signing a max player). Other compensation can include any combination of first or second round picks.

Or Just award the team that lost a FA a compensatory pick or two without the signing team losing any picks.

There are ways for players to get paid and parity to prevail. In all honesty this may be the only way to prevent bananaboat superteams from forming. If this system was in place for the Heat, no way they can get both Bosh and Lebron in straight FA. They would have had to trade for at least one (i know technically they traded a second rounder to the Cavs for Lebron, but this system would prevent farce trades like that).

DrAlphaeus wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

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.

I just can't bring myself to hating on Durant about this. He gave it a good run at OKC and for a number of reasons he's ready to try something new. I guess I'm not mad because first off, he'a still taking a gamble and while amazing on paper it still has to work on the floor. Secondly, just because doesn't want need to the alpha, he's weak? Maybe like LeBron he wants to stretch out in a new environment and get inspired as a player. Also the Bay is probably a lot more interesing place for a millionaire than OKC. Hobnob w tech royalty and set up the groundwork for being a venture calitalist after he hangs up his sneakers.

But maybe it's just me knowing I'd pick the Bay Area with great coworkers over everyone up my ass in Oklahoma.

That's actually fine and I have no problem with wanting to relocate. It clearly had to do with the team and not wanting to chill with techies. If he wanted to go to a city for pleasure our country offers better options. Suggesting that somebody in their mid 20s is relocating to go out for drinks with corporate executives is a real leap of faith.

If ppl are going to equate playing in the NBA to the working world that's a different story and then you may have a point but playing in the NBA is different from working at Amazon or Google no matter how much people want to pretend it isn't.

Getting all touchy feely, from a self-fulfillment perspective, I am interested to see how he brainwashes himself into thinking that going to a team that was a huge fav to win the title (if it works) was a career defining accomplishment. He doesn't see overly competitive and that's fine and it probably works for him and he will be content with it. It is disappointing to me as a fan of the league bc that's actually something they sell to the fanbase.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

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.

I just can't bring myself to hating on Durant about this. He gave it a good run at OKC and for a number of reasons he's ready to try something new. I guess I'm not mad because first off, he'a still taking a gamble and while amazing on paper it still has to work on the floor. Secondly, just because doesn't want need to the alpha, he's weak? Maybe like LeBron he wants to stretch out in a new environment and get inspired as a player. Also the Bay is probably a lot more interesing place for a millionaire than OKC. Hobnob w tech royalty and set up the groundwork for being a venture calitalist after he hangs up his sneakers.

But maybe it's just me knowing I'd pick the Bay Area with great coworkers over everyone up my ass in Oklahoma.

joec32033 wrote:Actually, and i'm just snowballing here, the MLB and NFL systems that favor loss of draft picks when signing certain caliber of players.

I.e. teams can designate players where if they sign with someone else they get that teams first or second round pick.

Another option is draft picks coincide with player salary. I.E. Durant would cost the Warriors 2 non consecutive 1st round draft picks (probably the ceiling cost for signing a max player). Other compensation can include any combination of first or second round picks.

Or Just award the team that lost a FA a compensatory pick or two without the signing team losing any picks.

There are ways for players to get paid and parity to prevail. In all honesty this may be the only way to prevent bananaboat superteams from forming. If this system was in place for the Heat, no way they can get both Bosh and Lebron in straight FA. They would have had to trade for at least one (i know technically they traded a second rounder to the Cavs for Lebron, but this system would prevent farce trades like that).

I like this idea. Depending on the value of the FA lost, it can be a first rounder or 2nd rounder. They can tweak it some more. The 1st rounder they get will be in the end of the 1st round but will have 1 ping pong ball in the lottery.

Knickoftime wrote:

markvmc wrote:Just have a hard salary cap. Sign who you want, but your entire roster has to be paid at or under the limit.

Players will NEVER go for that...

Yeah, I know.

joec32033 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

joec32033 wrote:Actually, and i'm just snowballing here, the MLB and NFL systems that favor loss of draft picks when signing certain caliber of players.

I.e. teams can designate players where if they sign with someone else they get that teams first or second round pick.

Another option is draft picks coincide with player salary. I.E. Durant would cost the Warriors 2 non consecutive 1st round draft picks (probably the ceiling cost for signing a max player). Other compensation can include any combination of first or second round picks.

Or Just award the team that lost a FA a compensatory pick or two without the signing team losing any picks.

There are ways for players to get paid and parity to prevail. In all honesty this may be the only way to prevent bananaboat superteams from forming. If this system was in place for the Heat, no way they can get both Bosh and Lebron in straight FA. They would have had to trade for at least one (i know technically they traded a second rounder to the Cavs for Lebron, but this system would prevent farce trades like that).

I like this idea. Depending on the value of the FA lost, it can be a first rounder or 2nd rounder. They can tweak it some more. The 1st rounder they get will be in the end of the 1st round but will have 1 ping pong ball in the lottery.

MLB can do this because you can't trade draft picks.

Having freedom to trade draft picks and having a compensation system in place would be logistically very difficult.

Baseball doesnt trade draft picks because they have such a vast minor league system they trade minor leaguers, which are essentially draft picks. More difficult yes, but doable in my opinion. Team loses first two eligible picks. The only technicality would be if a team signs 2 major free agents under a losing draft pick scenario. Ibwould havento think how that would work.

It could get very complicated, especially when you factor in the Sephian rule.

Do they keep that rule in place so if you already traded your next pick, you'd lose the pick 2 years later? Or do they create a system where a team could theoretically never select in the draft?

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

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.

I just can't bring myself to hating on Durant about this. He gave it a good run at OKC and for a number of reasons he's ready to try something new. I guess I'm not mad because first off, he'a still taking a gamble and while amazing on paper it still has to work on the floor. Secondly, just because doesn't want need to the alpha, he's weak? Maybe like LeBron he wants to stretch out in a new environment and get inspired as a player. Also the Bay is probably a lot more interesing place for a millionaire than OKC. Hobnob w tech royalty and set up the groundwork for being a venture calitalist after he hangs up his sneakers.

But maybe it's just me knowing I'd pick the Bay Area with great coworkers over everyone up my ass in Oklahoma.

That's actually fine and I have no problem with wanting to relocate. It clearly had to do with the team and not wanting to chill with techies. If he wanted to go to a city for pleasure our country offers better options. Suggesting that somebody in their mid 20s is relocating to go out for drinks with corporate executives is a real leap of faith.

If ppl are going to equate playing in the NBA to the working world that's a different story and then you may have a point but playing in the NBA is different from working at Amazon or Google no matter how much people want to pretend it isn't.

Getting all touchy feely, from a self-fulfillment perspective, I am interested to see how he brainwashes himself into thinking that going to a team that was a huge fav to win the title (if it works) was a career defining accomplishment. He doesn't see overly competitive and that's fine and it probably works for him and he will be content with it. It is disappointing to me as a fan of the league bc that's actually something they sell to the fanbase.

Better places... like Miami?

Obviously he wants a ring. Not saying its all about drinking Soylent with brogrammers. So he has an opportilunity to bail on the last voyage of the HMS Westbrook and synchronize swim with the Splash Brothers. I'm not saying it doesn't feel weird or wrong or on some cheat mode ish — It just a rock and a hard place. Fans are talking out both sides of their neck. Is it all about the rings at the end of the day, why show loyalty to Oklahoma City when they didn't show any loyalty to Seattle. Kevin is supposed to sit around and be the face of the franchise in a Westbrook contract year... but its all about the rings at the end of the day.

I guess I can understand if this changes their opinion of Durnat but I guess I don't understand the pettiness I see in these reactions.

Yeah, and you can't say the team that just lost in the finals was a huge favorite to win the title. He's going to a team that's going to need him to play like a superstar.
OKC doesn't appear to be able to build a title contender around him. What would you rather spend your life doing: Being a co-star on a title winning team or carrying a conference finals team every year?

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Yeah, and you can't say the team that just lost in the finals was a huge favorite to win the title. He's going to a team that's going to need him to play like a superstar.
OKC doesn't appear to be able to build a title contender around him. What would you rather spend your life doing: Being a co-star on a title winning team or carrying a conference finals team every year?

I was curious what the people criticizing Durant would say regarding this question. It looks like those were the two choices he was facing.

I think the question is false premise. I don't know that a title contender is someone who has won a title. Being able to do something and actually doing it are not the same thing.

OKC was 5 mins from going to a Final. They didn't execute. Doesn't mean they couldn't have. San Antonio are/were title contenders for years, but couldn't win every time.

So the answer to your question is OKC was a title contender, and probably would be again. And given luck, health, circumstances, I think the odds are decent OKC has the ability to win a title. And in fact, that's likely the crux of the criticism that he's getting, that he maybe does not have to drive to get over the hump lots of superstars have faced on their careers.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Yeah, and you can't say the team that just lost in the finals was a huge favorite to win the title. He's going to a team that's going to need him to play like a superstar.
OKC doesn't appear to be able to build a title contender around him. What would you rather spend your life doing: Being a co-star on a title winning team or carrying a conference finals team every year?

I was curious what the people criticizing Durant would say regarding this question. It looks like those were the two choices he was facing.

I think the question is false premise. I don't know that a title contender is someone who has won a title. Being able to do something and actually doing it are not the same thing.

OKC was 5 mins from going to a Final. They didn't execute. Doesn't mean they couldn't have. San Antonio are/were title contenders for years, but couldn't win every time.

So the answer to your question is OKC was a title contender, and probably would be again. And given luck, health, circumstances, I think the odds are decent OKC has the ability to win a title. And in fact, that's likely the crux of the criticism that he's getting, that he maybe does not have to drive to get over the hump lots of superstars have faced on their careers.

OK but how many times do you give it a shot in OKC with the same core before moving on? We're not just talking about last season. (Even last year he lost to the team that lost to the champions.) He tried seven times with Westbrook and Ibaka as his top teammates. No, it's not impossible he'd win a championship with them but I think the most likely scenario is he'd have more of what happened the last seven years.

Understand I'm not highly critical of him for it. I don't particularly think it shows a lot of character, but I don't get riled up over people exercising their freedom to do as they wish.

That said, its http://always unlikely you're going to win a championship. That's what sort of makes winning one such an accomplishment. Its the overcoming the odds and the perseverance that makes it special.

LBJ has three now, but I gotta believe even he holds the latest one as his most special.

I think it's a legitimate question to say how you win is as important as what you win.

No, no one is going to hand GSW a title, this season or any other. But there is no disputing this - he choose what is relatively speaking the path of least resistance.

I think the issue becomes down on whether one finds attempting to win that way saavy, or a little lacking in something. I lean toward the latter.