Durant to Warriors

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
Adrian Wojnarowski‏ @WojVerticalNBA
For Nike, this is a coup: It wanted to slow UnderArmour's momentum with Steph Curry and Warriors. Now, KD promises to impact Curry's star.

--
Interesting take but i don't buy it. Curry is the most popular athlete since Jordan for kids under 18.
Yeah Woj is full of shit, Nike might like for Durant to win a ring, but he isn't doing anything to slow Curry.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
I have no problem with what KD did. I'd have done the same thing.
I don't have a problem with what KD did but I find it dissonant (and it seems like a lot of other people do too). I mean how many other Top 5 players in any league are going to choose in the prime of their careers being second (or even third) fiddle on someone else's team? Maybe KD is just a different kind of player and he's happy not having to be the face of a franchise. There is nothing wrong with that but it's certainly not typical.
 

Dave Stapleton

Just A Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2001
9,112
Newport, RI
If I could make the same money at any one of thirty places I might pick the one that had the most talented employees, the most likelihood of success, the most fun, and the one in a top three city. And I think I'd like working with Steph Curry more than Russell Westbrook but that's just a guess.
Yeah but that's not a fair analogy. In the business world your success and earning potential is much more dependent on others than in a occupation where you play a game for a living and get paid based on your own individual talent.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
I don't have a problem with what KD did but I find it dissonant (and it seems like a lot of other people do too). I mean how many other Top 5 players in any league are going to choose in the prime of their careers being second (or even third) fiddle on someone else's team? Maybe KD is just a different kind of player and he's happy not having to be the face of a franchise. There is nothing wrong with that but it's certainly not typical.
If the nba held a draft tomorrow, who would get picked first after Lebron? There's maybe a chance that curry is 2nd. I doubt it though. To suggest that he will be the 3rd option is just downright illogical
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
The move says a lot about KD's mentality, none of it very impressive. This is a guy with the talent to be in the best-10-players-of-all-time conversation but, rather than trying to lead a team to a few titles and cementing his place in that discussion, he'd rather guarantee a title or two and be content with a place alongside Worthy, Pippen, etc in the best-second-or-third-fiddle of all time conversation. Basically, he sacrificed a shot at true greatness just to reduce the chance that he goes through his career without a ring. And he made that sacrifice at 27, in his prime and with a lot of basketball left to play, not at the tail end of his career when desperation for a ring typically sets in.
Yep, learned a lot about KD today. I could have understood a return to OKC, not joining a 72 win Warriors team.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,480
Garden City
I didn't care if KD won a championship before, I wouldn't care if he won it by playing on a team where it would be more of a challenge, and I won't care if he wins it with GS.

However, watching him lose will be satisfying.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
Yeah but that's not a fair analogy. In the business world your success and earning potential is much more dependent on others than in a occupation where you play a game for a living and get paid based on your own individual talent.
Except Durant is not in an occupation where he gets paid based on his own individual talent. If he were he'd be paid a lot more than Al Horford.

The argument for him not to go to GS seems to be that while it will be a blast and he will do well and the team has a great shot to win it all and nobody else could pay him more, he would forge a better "legacy" if he won in OKC as 1A or in Boston as 1...even though he probably wouldn't win in OKC or Boston, and then his legacy would be World's Greatest Loser.

I mean the legacy is a big load of crap. It's the NBA where players are crowned the next greatest of all-time every five minutes (well that's hyperbole; this year I only heard two players talked about as possibly the new greatest of all-time and it was a week apart).
Luckily for Durant he was never in the running for GOAT si he can just be spectacular where he wants and maybe win at least once so he never has to hear about how he was great but not great enough to win.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
You trying to wipe out BBTL? We erect shrines to people who sublimate their egos, put team first -- and we don't give a damn how they get here or when in their careers. Or how richly they are paid.
Fair enough on some level. But football and basketball are different sports. Only the QB position, in which the ability to lead a team to a title is generally viewed as one component of the resume for those in the greatest-of-all-time-conversation, is equivalent to the upper echelon of NBA superstardom. Lets say Andrew Luck decided to sign with the Patriots in order to split time with Tom Brady, understanding that he would probably not play a major role in the playoffs, in order to maximize his chances of getting a ring. Would we erect a shrine to him for sublimating his ego, putting the team first, and just wanting to win? Obviously this would never happen for a great many reasons. But if you want to be in the conversation for all time great QBs, you have to earn it by leading a team to the Super Bowl. And if you want to be in the conversation for all time great NBA players, you need to do the same thing. Kevin Durant hedged. He maximized his chances of winning a title, therefore avoiding falling into the the Barkley/Malone category that you previously mentioned, but in so doing gave up his shot at staking a claim to be among the greatest players the league has ever seen. People value different things and maybe the latter just isn't all that important to him.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
Fair enough on some level. But football and basketball are different sports. Only the QB position, in which the ability to lead a team to a title is generally viewed as one component of the resume for those in the greatest-of-all-time-conversation, is equivalent to the upper echelon of NBA superstardom. Lets say Andrew Luck decided to sign with the Patriots in order to split time with Tom Brady, understanding that he would probably not play a major role in the playoffs, in order to maximize his chances of getting a ring. Would we erect a shrine to him for sublimating his ego, putting the team first, and just wanting to win? Obviously this would never happen for a great many reasons. But if you want to be in the conversation for all time great QBs, you have to earn it by leading a team to the Super Bowl. And if you want to be in the conversation for all time great NBA players, you need to do the same thing. Kevin Durant hedged. He maximized his chances of winning a title, therefore avoiding falling into the the Barkley/Malone category that you previously mentioned, but in so doing gave up his shot at staking a claim to be among the greatest players the league has ever seen. People value different things and maybe the latter just isn't all that important to him.
What does "being in the conversation for the all time greats" actually mean? I mean there is no definitive answer.

I get that people want competitive balance but this guy has been in the NBA for nine years and has had one of the best young cores the NBA has seen in quite some time and they still haven't been able to get it done. He is going to be 28 before the next season starts, has had a serious foot injury and, despite his team playing at its maximum capabilities, he still couldn't get out of the West this season. Furthermore, he knows his team's other great player is almost certainly leaving next year so he is supposed to be a martyr and stay in OKC because he might have a shot a better legacy? Or go to Boston where he essentially is in the same spot - good enough to get close but likely not enough to get it done. This makes zero sense.

Today we learned a few things. Russell Westbrook is almost certainly a goner in OKC come next offseason (if not sooner now). We also learned that Kevin Durant is tired of doing the same thing and coming up short. He is likely also tired of the OKC ownership frittering away the team's talent when they had, arguably, the personnel to win a championship. And we learned that he values winning above all else, including money, this nebulous concept about legacy and what people think of him. That is about it.

Its your prerogative to root against Kevin Durant but I respect the guy a lot for essentially going all in to win a championship. I am certain many will feel otherwise and I believe you are right that people will question his "legacy". However, I suspect he gives zero fucks, especially if he gets to win a ring.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
What does "being in the conversation for the all time greats" actually mean? I mean there is no definitive answer.

I get that people want competitive balance but this guy has been in the NBA for nine years and has had one of the best young cores the NBA has seen in quite some time and they still haven't been able to get it done. He is going to be 28 before the next season starts, has had a serious foot injury and, despite his team playing at its maximum capabilities, he still couldn't get out of the West this season. Furthermore, he knows his team's other great player is almost certainly leaving next year so he is supposed to be a martyr and stay in OKC because he might have a shot a better legacy? Or go to Boston where he essentially is in the same spot - good enough to get close but likely not enough to get it done. This makes zero sense.

Today we learned a few things. Russell Westbrook is almost certainly a goner in OKC come next offseason (if not sooner now). We also learned that Kevin Durant is tired of doing the same thing and coming up short. He is likely also tired of the OKC ownership frittering away the team's talent when they had, arguably, the personnel to win a championship. And we learned that he values winning above all else, including money, this nebulous concept about legacy and what people think of him. That is about it.

Its your prerogative to root against Kevin Durant but I respect the guy a lot for essentially going all in to win a championship. I am certain many will feel otherwise and I believe you are right that people will question his "legacy". However, I suspect he gives zero fucks, especially if he gets to win a ring.
I'm sure you'd also respect him for going all in if it had been with a team other than the Warriors. Congrats on your team getting Durrant.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
I'm sure you'd also respect him for going all in if it had been with a team other than the Warriors. Congrats on your team getting Durrant.
I am a Celtics fan first and wanted him to go to Boston. I was actually very bummed out by the news.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I am a Celtics fan first and wanted him to go to Boston. I was actually very bummed out by the news.
My bad... I thought you were a warriors fan first. I'm bummed too.. I didn't think the C's really had a chance until the last few days... But I just want there to be more teams to root for or at least have a chance. The NBA where two to four teams have a real shot of winning has gotten a bit old. And now it's just gotten even worse.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
My bad... I thought you were a warriors fan first. I'm bummed too.. I didn't think the C's really had a chance until the last few days... But I just want there to be more teams to root for or at least have a chance. The NBA where two to four teams have a real shot of winning has gotten a bit old. And now it's just gotten even worse.
I think he would have been a great fit in Boston. I also think he likely would have retired without a ring barring the C's trading for an elite player (unlikely) or drafting the next great star next year. As much as it pains me, he did the best thing for his chance at winning a ring today.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I think he would have been a great fit in Boston. I also think he likely would have retired without a ring barring the C's trading for an elite player (unlikely) or drafting the next great star next year. As much as it pains me, he did the best thing for his chance at winning a ring today.
Of course.

I also wanted to see some of the talent come east. Because Lebron virtually getting a clear path to the finals every year has gotten old too. Just want to have him play a star or two before the finals.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Magic and Kareem played with each other, and had Worthy. Bird had McHale, Jordan had Pippen. I really don't understand what GOAT conversations Durant took himself out of this weekend. If OKC had drafted Curry and signed Green as an FA to get here, no one would be saying the same thing. Who cares how we got here?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
He may have taken himself out of the KMalone/Baylor//Barkley GOAT conversation, that's about it.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,532
Really rooting for Westbrook to go to the Spurs next year, as Mannix floated recently, and fuck over the Warriors a couple times. I just hope this super team implodes somehow.
 

CleverLoginName

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
3
I really don't see how arguably a top 3 player joins a already stacked team with three other players who are top 10 players in the NBA, all of whom are in their prime. They were title contenders for the foreseeable future without Durant, now it's just unfair and boring. I mean, baring some injuries does anyone really think Cleveland will beat this Warrior team? I love my Celtics but I'm an NBA fan foremost and I can't see how this is good for the league where one team is just gonna steamroll their way to the championship every year. And yes I understand the Celtics franchise was built on these Superteams but that was a different era and the Celtics were just way ahead of the curve.

I'm happy for Kevin Durant but I'm not to enthused for the league. Someone persuade me as to how this can be good for the league? A lineup of Curry, Thompson, Green and Durant looks more like the USA Olympic team than a NBA one.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
What does "being in the conversation for the all time greats" actually mean? I mean there is no definitive answer.

I get that people want competitive balance but this guy has been in the NBA for nine years and has had one of the best young cores the NBA has seen in quite some time and they still haven't been able to get it done. He is going to be 28 before the next season starts, has had a serious foot injury and, despite his team playing at its maximum capabilities, he still couldn't get out of the West this season. Furthermore, he knows his team's other great player is almost certainly leaving next year so he is supposed to be a martyr and stay in OKC because he might have a shot a better legacy? Or go to Boston where he essentially is in the same spot - good enough to get close but likely not enough to get it done. This makes zero sense.

Today we learned a few things. Russell Westbrook is almost certainly a goner in OKC come next offseason (if not sooner now). We also learned that Kevin Durant is tired of doing the same thing and coming up short. He is likely also tired of the OKC ownership frittering away the team's talent when they had, arguably, the personnel to win a championship. And we learned that he values winning above all else, including money, this nebulous concept about legacy and what people think of him. That is about it.

Its your prerogative to root against Kevin Durant but I respect the guy a lot for essentially going all in to win a championship. I am certain many will feel otherwise and I believe you are right that people will question his "legacy". However, I suspect he gives zero fucks, especially if he gets to win a ring.
"Going all in" implies he's risking something. If the most important thing to him was his legacy he would have found a situation where he could be the best player on a championship team. I don't see how anyone is going to be impressed when they win the title next year. This is like Shaq joining the 72 win Bulls. If Draymond was smart enough to realize that it's more important to stay on the court than punch guys in the nuts, or if Bogut doesn't get hurt, GS would be the two time defending champions.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
One interesting subplot to keep an eye on here: Is OKC even a viable NBA market again? Assume for a second that they lose Westbrook, too. Then what?
As someone who's lived in Oklahoma my whole life and never heard shit about NBA before the Hornets briefly came to town, I just don't think so. Football is the only sport that matters here, and people only get into basketball teams (be it OU or OSU or the Thunder) when they're winning. a few years of losing teams and the team will crater and be wanting out of Oklahoma faster than KD.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
He is risking something: his reputation as "The Man" and an all-time player because he's admitting he needs a better (even HoF-worth) core to win.

One question: what was the rationale for trading Harden a few years ago? Why couldn't they keep the core three of Durant/Westbrook/Harden together? Hard to believe that team couldn't have done it at least once.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
"Going all in" implies he's risking something. If the most important thing to him was his legacy he would have found a situation where he could be the best player on a championship team. I don't see how anyone is going to be impressed when they win the title next year. This is like Shaq joining the 72 win Bulls. If Draymond was smart enough to realize that it's more important to stay on the court than punch guys in the nuts, or if Bogut doesn't get hurt, GS would be the two time defending champions.
Once again, Durant left money on the table and is drawing the ire of many sports fans like you as well as the hot takes crowd who is now questioning his character. And if the Warriors fail to win, he will be judged very harshly by history.

Once again I ask those being critical of Durant - is he supposed to stay in OKC if Westbrook is leaving? Or go to a team that has less talent?
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
The idea that Kevin Durant should have made a decision about his professional career and livelihood based on some abstract conversation about his "legacy" that will take place amongst bitter, angry sports fans and even more bitter and more angry sports media personalities when he retires is one of the most absurd things ever floated on this message board. I'm sure he understood that a not-insignificant number of NBA fans were going to hate him no matter what. Why should he bother caring what any of them might think about his legacy?

I'm not an NBA fan or really even a Celtic fan anymore, but I grew up one. I get the frustration, but the issue here isn't Durant, it's the sport and the league. It has always been like this. The handful of teams with the best players win, and if a team is lucky enough to throw together 2 or 3 of the best players on one team they will dominate. Celtic fans didn't have an issue with it when it worked to our benefit for the majority of the first 40 years of the history of the league.
 

kelpapa

Costanza's Hero
SoSH Member
Feb 15, 2010
4,639
Magic and Kareem played with each other, and had Worthy. Bird had McHale, Jordan had Pippen. I really don't understand what GOAT conversations Durant took himself out of this weekend. If OKC had drafted Curry and signed Green as an FA to get here, no one would be saying the same thing. Who cares how we got here?
Stephen A does.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Celtic fans didn't have an issue with it when it worked to our benefit for the majority of the first 40 years of the history of the league.
I agree with the main thrust of your post--KD should do what he thinks is best for him.

However, there's a huge difference in how the Celtics acquired their players and how it happens now.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
I agree with the main thrust of your post--KD should do what he thinks is best for him.

However, there's a huge difference in how the Celtics acquired their players and how it happens now.
Yes, I agree, but my point was more about the fact that in the history of the NBA teams stacked with great players is more the norm than the exception.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Whenever one of these types of player moves happens and everyone wonders aloud how anyone can stop the new juggernaut, I picture Mike Mussina staring at the empty ring finger on his right hand and shaking his head sadly.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Yeah--you'd think that as fans (well, a lot of us) of the 16-0 Pats we'd get this.

In all 4 major sports, the team with the best regular season record ever has never won the title. Things happen.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
Once again, Durant left money on the table and is drawing the ire of many sports fans like you as well as the hot takes crowd who is now questioning his character. And if the Warriors fail to win, he will be judged very harshly by history.

Once again I ask those being critical of Durant - is he supposed to stay in OKC if Westbrook is leaving? Or go to a team that has less talent?
How about go to a fun, successful, and cohesive team that welcomed him with open arms, and also happens to be in a beautiful city with a rabid fan base? We should all be so fortunate in our professional lives. As others have said, as far as personal, ego-driven glory, there's not a lot of upside here- he'll get little credit if they win, and a world of shit and schadenfreude if they don't- but he's essentially sacrificing the laurels of personal greatness for being part of a great team. In other contexts, that's universally lauded, but in the NBA, to the Stephen A. Smiths of the world I guess it means he's a coward. He could've stayed on a one-and-one, even knowing that Westbrook was leaving, sure. But he'd likely just be in the same position next year, just a year older. Had he chose the Celtics, he would have gotten shit for dodging the Western Conference, it just wouldn't have been from people here.

And for some wild speculation, because I think the following scenario is more likely than people here seem to think given the lack of discussion about it- it's also possible he gives some credence to Lebron's superteam dream coming into form next year. If he thinks Lebron/CP3/Wade/Melo is happening next year, I wonder if that changes people's perception of his decision.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
Once again, Durant left money on the table and is drawing the ire of many sports fans like you as well as the hot takes crowd who is now questioning his character. And if the Warriors fail to win, he will be judged very harshly by history.

Once again I ask those being critical of Durant - is he supposed to stay in OKC if Westbrook is leaving? Or go to a team that has less talent?
My disappointment is more with the NBA than Durant himself. Last year was a great season and fun to watch. This year is going to be a lot less fun. Durant has the right to do what he wants. He should go where he wants to go. I just don't see his decision as something to respect or celebrate. In fact, I think it sucks because it makes the NBA a lot less fun, and it's disappointing that this is what he wants. I don't have a right or wrong answer for what he should do. But I like him less and respect him less for making the NBA a lot less fun. Selfishly I wanted him to come to Boston, but any other decision would have been better than this.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,470
Somewhere
And for some wild speculation, because I think the following scenario is more likely than people here seem to think given the lack of discussion about it- it's also possible he gives some credence to Lebron's superteam dream coming into form next year. If he thinks Lebron/CP3/Wade/Melo is happening next year, I wonder if that changes people's perception of his decision.
Would 'Melo really agree to move to Cleveland? Would an older Chris Paul be better than Kyrie Irving by that point? I mean, I don't think that's happening.
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
979
Upper Valley
Really rooting for Westbrook to go to the Spurs next year, as Mannix floated recently, and fuck over the Warriors a couple times. I just hope this super team implodes somehow.
I'm really hoping Danny is aggressively looking to get Westbrook as he appears to potentially be on the market. The Celtics may be able to put a nice package together for a now possibly rebuilding Thunder...

Westbrook
Thomas
X
Horford
X

That's a very solid 3, the rest can be filled in with any number of pieces remaining after the trade and still probably coast through the east.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
Last year was a great season and fun to watch. This year is going to be a lot less fun.
First of all, I strongly disagree with the first sentence. The East was a fait accompli all year, and the West got a lot weaker after the top four than it had been for years. GS/SA played at a historic level, but OKC choked away virtually every big regular season game they played in. No one took them seriously until Adams and Roberson emerged in the playoffs and they kicked it up a level. And the GS team everyone is worried about "ruining" the league won a league record 73 games. They are better on paper, but do you think they're going to win more than 73? If so, I'd like to see that.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting Durant should have gone to, say, the Pelicans. There is a difference between joining a team that gives you a real chance to win a ring and a team that is so loaded that it just set a record for regular season wins – and oh BTW, just beat you in the WCF.

Durant could have said, "Of all the choices I had, I had a chance to be on what may be remembered as the greatest team of all time – at the end of the day, that was more important to me than being the top dog, even one on a championship team." That is a rationale for this decision I think a lot of people could have gotten behind: being a part of something that's never been done before. His actual piece in the PT suggests to me that he just wants his ring and doesn't care much how he gets it.

That's fine but let's not contort ourselves into pretzels to justify the choice he made – or argue that "bitter fans" care about his legacy than Durant himself. Guys who don't care about their image and where they place in basketball lore don't pen flowery essays on the rationale behind their FA decisions in the PT.

Durant made a big, even seismic, choice for himself and the NBA – but seems to have made it for small reasons, period. It's not hard to understand why people would be disappointed.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Once again, Durant left money on the table and is drawing the ire of many sports fans like you as well as the hot takes crowd who is now questioning his character. And if the Warriors fail to win, he will be judged very harshly by history.

Once again I ask those being critical of Durant - is he supposed to stay in OKC if Westbrook is leaving? Or go to a team that has less talent?
This is the second time you've made this point, as if somehow Westbrook forced his hand. Westbrook's fate in OKC was sealed by Durant's decision, not the other way around. The way you keep saying that feels like a weird justification.

I think the common expectation was that Durant would sign a 1+1 in OKC. They'd roll back the team that was 4 minutes from the Finals, only with Oladipo in place of Ibaka specifically to help them match up against Golden State. They would have had a very real chance of winning a championship, and if that's the case, I don't think either Durant or Westbrook leaves OKC. And if they fell short again, they'd both be entering free agency in the year that allowed them to maximize their earnings and could either dictate how OKC needed to proceed to keep them, or move on.

I don't really fault Durant, to be clear. Players can and should go where they want, and player movement makes the NBA far more interesting to me than the opposite. I just find it odd that twice now you've basically said that Durant decided to leave because Westbrook did.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
Would 'Melo really agree to move to Cleveland? Would an older Chris Paul be better than Kyrie Irving by that point? I mean, I don't think that's happening.
I don't really think so either- it's more likely that Wade signs with Miami by the end of the day today and makes this look like the foolishness it probably is- but Lebron has talked about it enough to make me think that it's something those guys are actually considering. The most workable plan I've seen actually has Melo as the one staying put- the Knicks will have a ton of cap space next year. So if I'm Durant and I think that CP3/Wade/Lebron/Melo/Porzingis is an actual possibility in a year, that makes Golden State all the more attractive.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,016
Chelmsford, MA
I don't understand at all this faux-intellectual approach where I'm supposed to be happy about this because there might be an all time great team pulled together (augmenting what was just an all time great team). It really isn't going to be fascinating to watch them take a run at their own record because A) we now know they can do it and B) they just added a gigantic superstar to the team that just did it one season prior.

It's not a sour grapes reaction as a Celtics fan to hate this. They were always a long shot. I just want to watch guys compete. Kevin Durant leading a team against Steph Curry is what I want to see, not Curry and Durant yukking it up on the sidelines in the 4th quarter of a game they're up by 40. This league is at its best when it has a half dozen to a dozen guys all vying to be the top dog. This superteam movement just isn't interesting or fun to me.

If Durant had spent more of his career toiling away in OKC or for some other team trying and failing to get over Steph's Warriors and then had made the choice after he could no longer be the #1 to chase a title like this the reaction would be entirely different. Malone, as an example, was no longer the player he had been at his pinnacle and was never going to get there alone at that point. Those post prime title chases are fine because they almost acknowledge the passing of the mantle that happens in sports. Durant is just too good to give up on fighting Curry and instead join up with them.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
I'm really hoping Danny is aggressively looking to get Westbrook as he appears to potentially be on the market. The Celtics may be able to put a nice package together for a now possibly rebuilding Thunder.
While Horford may have signed here and Durant entertained it, Westbrook is seen as someone that's going to LA or NY as a free agent if he doesn't stay in OKC (which seems far-fetched). There's no way I'd give up anything of consequence for a one year rental of Westbrook.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
Why do people keep saying "years?"

It's one year. He'll opt out, because everyone does, and we'll have the same circus next year. If the Celtics make noise this year, he'll consider them again. But he's going to go for the ring this year and the money next year and beyond. Seems pretty smart to me.
Because he can do both of those in Golden State.

Why go for a ring when you can go for rings?
I think it's pretty obvious he's taking his shot at the ring. If he gets it, he's out to whoever provides the most money and a decent shot at another title. Where it gets interesting is if they don't win next year. Does Durant stay and try one more time? That's the most likely outcome. So it's two shots at one ring and then back out to FA for the best deal he can get.

Today we learned a few things. Russell Westbrook is almost certainly a goner in OKC come next offseason (if not sooner now). We also learned that Kevin Durant is tired of doing the same thing and coming up short. He is likely also tired of the OKC ownership frittering away the team's talent when they had, arguably, the personnel to win a championship. And we learned that he values winning above all else, including money, this nebulous concept about legacy and what people think of him. That is about it.

Its your prerogative to root against Kevin Durant but I respect the guy a lot for essentially going all in to win a championship. I am certain many will feel otherwise and I believe you are right that people will question his "legacy". However, I suspect he gives zero fucks, especially if he gets to win a ring.
He values winning the most right now. Once he gets a taste, I think it will be all about the cash with a reasonable chance to win a title again. Unlike with LeBron going CLE->MIA->CLE, he won't be going back to OKC, but he'll head somewhere with a really good shot.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,209
This is the second time you've made this point, as if somehow Westbrook forced his hand. Westbrook's fate in OKC was sealed by Durant's decision, not the other way around. The way you keep saying that feels like a weird justification.

I think the common expectation was that Durant would sign a 1+1 in OKC. They'd roll back the team that was 4 minutes from the Finals, only with Oladipo in place of Ibaka specifically to help them match up against Golden State. They would have had a very real chance of winning a championship, and if that's the case, I don't think either Durant or Westbrook leaves OKC. And if they fell short again, they'd both be entering free agency in the year that allowed them to maximize their earnings and could either dictate how OKC needed to proceed to keep them, or move on.

I don't really fault Durant, to be clear. Players can and should go where they want, and player movement makes the NBA far more interesting to me than the opposite. I just find it odd that twice now you've basically said that Durant decided to leave because Westbrook did.
I have no more information than you (or perhaps less) but given the fact that Durant actually pulled the trigger now rather than next year strongly suggests that he knows Westbrook is leaving.

So why not go back for one more year? If Westbrook is, in fact, planning to leave it creates a lot of uncertainty around the team and it also has the potential to affect performance. More to the point, if Durant chose to stay, his window to join Golden State would have closed as they would likely would resign Barnes and some of their other free agents and then had to pay Curry next offseason.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
And for some wild speculation, because I think the following scenario is more likely than people here seem to think given the lack of discussion about it- it's also possible he gives some credence to Lebron's superteam dream coming into form next year. If he thinks Lebron/CP3/Wade/Melo is happening next year, I wonder if that changes people's perception of his decision.
I'm not sure about the LBJ superteam, but I think there's an excellent chance KD is one and done in Oakland. A lot of the hot-takes on his motives assume otherwise.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
While Horford may have signed here and Durant entertained it, Westbrook is seen as someone that's going to LA or NY as a free agent if he doesn't stay in OKC (which seems far-fetched). There's no way I'd give up anything of consequence for a one year rental of Westbrook.
Who sees him this way? Do you have any sources on that outside of speculation based on the fact that he's from LA? Westbrook is one of the most competitive guys in the NBA. I have a really hard time seeing him going to a stripped bare Lakers team, and not looking for a place to win.

Further, how often do these deals end up actually being one year rentals? Dwight Howard. Who else? Deals for UFAs never happen in a vacuum. Teams talk to agents, agents talk to players, and if there isn't interest in re-signing the deals don't happen. That is only amplified by the new CBA, which doesn't allow for sign and trades with Bird rights. If Westbrook accepts a trade to Boston, it's because he is willing to sign with Boston. It's really not as complicated as everybody makes it seem.