CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: Ogaju on May 20, 2018, 09:31:19 PM
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
-
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
As much as I despise Lebron, his 1 ring with Cleveland will be worth more than any and all rings Durant wins in his career as a Warrior.
Might sound harsh, but that's how I feel about it, and I'm sure many do. Weakest move in NBA History as of today. If Lebron joins Golden State, then that would become the weakest :P
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
Didn’t he structure his deal so GSW could afford a decent bench? That is circumventing the spirit of the salary cap.
-
This is probably the worst thing to happen to the NBA in quite some time. If the Celtics weren't a great story to follow I wouldn't pay any mind to the NBA because it's a one team league and it's not fun to watch for the most part. In the early 00's, people had a pretty good idea that the Lakers would win every year, but there were always teams to give them a good run - spurs, kings, blazers to name a few. There simply isn't another team, unless another super team is formed, to take down this team that's rolling out every night with 4 all stars. They make it work within the confines of the salary cap so good for them, but Durants legacy is absolutely tarnished if you ask me. Winning 7 titles with this team won't negate the fact that he was up on the warriors 3-1 2 years ago, while playing with another all time great, couldn't get the job done, and jumps ship to go to that team - who by the way won 73 games that season. It's a joke.
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
if “all sides followed the rules” is the only condition needed to withhold nixing deals, why did David stern veto the “cp3 to the lakers” deal? The deal happened and the commissioner used his power to end the deal.
-
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
As much as I despise Lebron, his 1 ring with Cleveland will be worth more than any and all rings Durant wins in his career as a Warrior.
Might sound harsh, but that's how I feel about it, and I'm sure many do. Weakest move in NBA History as of today. If Lebron joins Golden State, then that would become the weakest :P
Gotta second all of this. TP.
-
The NBA system had an injection of capital after the new TV deal. Durant joining the Warriors is about as non-competitive as it gets. LeBron and Chris Paul - as Pres and VP of the player's union - probably regret not allowing for cap smoothing. Most would never have anticipated this kind of move.
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
if “all sides followed the rules” is the only condition needed to withhold nixing deals, why did David stern veto the “cp3 to the lakers” deal? The deal happened and the commissioner used his power to end the deal.
David Stern nixed the CP3 to the Lakers deal because he felt that deal was not in the best interest of the Pelicans (Hornets at the time), not because it was against the rules. Stern wasn't acting as commissioner of the league in that case, but more as the defacto owner of the team.
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
if “all sides followed the rules” is the only condition needed to withhold nixing deals, why did David stern veto the “cp3 to the lakers” deal? The deal happened and the commissioner used his power to end the deal.
David Stern nixed the CP3 to the Lakers deal because he felt that deal was not in the best interest of the Pelicans (Hornets at the time), not because it was against the rules. Stern wasn't acting as commissioner of the league in that case, but more as the defacto owner of the team.
Wrong
NBa league officials had granted autonomy to the Hornets’ front office to make personnel decisions it deemed appropriate.
Stern was said to be acting on behalf of some of the other owners, who were upset to see the Hornets send Paul — a premier point guard — to the Lakers, who have won five championships since 2000.
at least one owner did demand that the trade be rejected. Dan Gilbert, the Cleveland Cavaliers owner, referred to the trade as a “travesty” in a letter to Stern and others in the league Thursday night.
“I just don’t see how we can allow this trade to happen,” Gilbert writes in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.
Gilbert claims that the deal would have saved the Lakers $20 million in salaries over the next three years, and another $21 million in luxury taxes — money that would go to small-market teams like the Cavaliers.
Stern was doing what was best for other team owners, not the hornets. He acted in a commissioners capacity or point of view. Stern killed the deal because the lakers would have been unbalanced and have complete domination of the league like the warriors today with Durant
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
if “all sides followed the rules” is the only condition needed to withhold nixing deals, why did David stern veto the “cp3 to the lakers” deal? The deal happened and the commissioner used his power to end the deal.
David Stern nixed the CP3 to the Lakers deal because he felt that deal was not in the best interest of the Pelicans (Hornets at the time), not because it was against the rules. Stern wasn't acting as commissioner of the league in that case, but more as the defacto owner of the team.
Wrong
NBa league officials had granted autonomy to the Hornets’ front office to make personnel decisions it deemed appropriate.
Stern was said to be acting on behalf of some of the other owners, who were upset to see the Hornets send Paul — a premier point guard — to the Lakers, who have won five championships since 2000.
at least one owner did demand that the trade be rejected. Dan Gilbert, the Cleveland Cavaliers owner, referred to the trade as a “travesty” in a letter to Stern and others in the league Thursday night.
“I just don’t see how we can allow this trade to happen,” Gilbert writes in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.
Gilbert claims that the deal would have saved the Lakers $20 million in salaries over the next three years, and another $21 million in luxury taxes — money that would go to small-market teams like the Cavaliers.
Stern was doing what was best for other team owners, not the hornets. He acted in a commissioners capacity or point of view
I'm sure there were owners that voiced their protestation, I think Sarver was another, but it doesn't matter. Stern absolutely did not do any such thing. Any one who believes that is just buying into conspiracy theories.
Stern vetoed that trade for the betterment of the Hornets/Pelicans franchise. Period.
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
1. I agree. They did nothing illegal. They had cap space and made a hell of a pitch to Durant. That's pretty much what it comes down to. Durant obviously doesn't care that he is perceived as a quitter or someone who wants to take the easy route; he cares more about playing in a warm climate with guys he likes and winning titles in the process. He clearly isn't concerned about his legacy as much as guys like LeBron and Kobe.
2. That's so ridiculous. The warriors were up 3-1 against the Cavs, and ended up losing. To not lose those last 3 consecutive games they need the 2nd best player in the world? 2016 was a fluke and that Durant-less warriors team beats the cavs in a 7 game series at least 8 times out of ten. Imagine after the Celtics took the Lakers to 7 games in 2010 they thought the only way of getting over them next years was to get Nowitzki. That's what it's like.
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
if “all sides followed the rules” is the only condition needed to withhold nixing deals, why did David stern veto the “cp3 to the lakers” deal? The deal happened and the commissioner used his power to end the deal.
David Stern nixed the CP3 to the Lakers deal because he felt that deal was not in the best interest of the Pelicans (Hornets at the time), not because it was against the rules. Stern wasn't acting as commissioner of the league in that case, but more as the defacto owner of the team.
Not totally true....it was the owners led by Cuban and Gilbert that squashed the deal, the league office would have said yes. So if there was a best interest of basketball rule at that time they could have found something to say no to Durant’s pursie move.
-
A. Durant's "Legacy" is similar to Scottie Pippins "Legacy" - who cares.. (he sure as heck doesn't)
B. Who cares that GoldenState is Stacked.. Go beat them... That's what sports are all about...
-
A. Durant's "Legacy" is similar to Scottie Pippins "Legacy" - who cares.. (he sure as heck doesn't)
B. Who cares that GoldenState is Stacked.. Go beat them... That's what sports are all about...
To the question raised in B (Who cares that Golden State is stacked) - The answer -> any one who cares about/follows NBA basketball. A 73 win team adding an MVP caliber player in his prime is anti-competiitive - quite simply.
"Go beat them" - here's the problem. Durant-like commodities are rare. And already-built teams with flexibility/cap space to add Durant-level players are even more rare.
Durant to GS was an uncommon opportunity and a game-changer for the NBA's competitive landscape.
It's unfortunate if you're anything but a fan of the Warriors.
-
Durant going to the warriors was a loser move. He just blew a 3-1 lead to the warriors then jumps ship to go join them because it would be easier. It is going to take another super-team to beat them. Which is why I could see Lebron go join the Rockets.
I think the celtics could give them a run next year. Kyrie/Brown/Hayward/Tatum/Horford....with a bench of Rozier/Smart/Morris/Baynes could match up pretty well. We always seem to play the warriors close
-
A. Durant's "Legacy" is similar to Scottie Pippins "Legacy" - who cares.. (he sure as heck doesn't)
B. Who cares that GoldenState is Stacked.. Go beat them... That's what sports are all about...
To the question raised in B (Who cares that Golden State is stacked) - The answer -> any one who cares about/follows NBA basketball. A 73 win team adding an MVP caliber player in his prime is anti-competiitive - quite simply.
"Go beat them" - here's the problem. Durant-like commodities are rare. And already-built teams with flexibility/cap space to add Durant-level players are even more rare.
Durant to GS was an uncommon opportunity and a game-changer for the NBA's competitive landscape.
It's unfortunate if you're anything but a fan of the Warriors.
Durant was Destined to be on a Team with 2 super Elite players.. When he came into the league he was on a team with Harden the Russ.. (That team was a Team with 3 Potential League MVPS) Had that Team stayed together we would be talking about them in the same vein as we Do GS. So again, who cares that he plays with Tiny Ankles in GS...
Durant is a special talent - the league just needs to deal with it. Fans just need to deal with it... (And if Curry goes down that team will not win)
IF the Celtics next year get lucky in the Draft (top 3) should the league try to break us up in a couple of years because we have 3 super talented guys on the team?
-
I think you're both pretty.
You can think the NBA shouldn't have stepped in to stop the Durant signing just because it was incredibly advantageous to one team...and still view all of Durant's current and future accomplishments as watered-down shadows of other great players.
If you want the league to step in...where does that stop? When does this competition council get called in and when does it not? Just because some of other owners are worried about how good a team has become? Would they have stepped in to stop the Garnett trade? The Brooklyn heist? Think about how great we already are without Irving and Hayward...and with our young prospects and future draft picks. What if we had beat the odds last week and nailed the #2 pick in this year's draft? Should Gilbert and Cuban been able to step in and take that from us because it would be unfair to the rest of the league?
They have rules in place to protect franchises from destroying themselves...but stopping one franchise from legally adding to their dominance would be a new thing for this (or any) league.
-
I think you're both pretty.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9DPpOcu1dTXO2efS/giphy.gif)
Ah the English language, where one extra letter turns an insult into an awkward compliment lol.
-
We'll see changes to FA to discourage elite players taking less to group together in the future, IMO. The GSW are costing the league a ton of $$$. I read that the difference last year in a 7 game vs. 5 game finals was over $100 million in advertising revenue.
If GSW walks all over the ECF winner, we may see changes soon. Having GSW win a 5 game non-competitive WCF, and then a 4/5 game non-competitive finals would be a financial trainwreck for the league. It hurts everyone, teams, broadcasters and players. I don't know what form it will take, but changes are coming.
-
I think you're both pretty.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9DPpOcu1dTXO2efS/giphy.gif)
Ah the English language, where one extra letter turns an insult into an awkward compliment lol.
tp
I’m crying
-
We can call KD the Snakeman for what he has done to the league by joining the GS bandwagon but we should all remember who architect this move and if so should be the one being banned by the league.... Jerry West.
Look back you see we were oh so tantalizingly close to signing KD.. But that voodoo of a GM did his thing, said magical chant over the phone to Durant and sonehow convinced him going to Boston will not be the best for him.
This was Mr. Logo's final blockbuster move for the Warriors before abandoning ship... I don't even recall if he was even there during the meeting with KD but somehow perhaps knew thru some back channellings that KD was ready to sign with Boston and being the Logo that he is who despises the Celtics.. Had to do something and swoop in to snag Durant.
All just revisionist history now as we all say but man... Watching one team one team year in and year out winning the championship is indeed boring.. We need to go back to the 70s...Not one team won back to back in the entire decade and the league was sort of ruled by at least 5 teams who alternated winning the title.
-
Kevin Durant is in his eleventh year in the NBA and has one title. I acknowledge he is likely on his way to his second. However, next season he will be 30 years old and entering his twelfth season with a lot of wear and tear on the hardwood. While this Warriors team may seem like an unstoppable force now, they will likely be genuinely vulnerable in just a couple years. Age and miles slow down everyone, even the great ones. Let the Warriors have their moment. They have earned it. They are a great team, with great players, and play basketball the right way. But make no mistake. It won't last forever. It never does, and it usually ends quicker than expected. This is not the 1960s Celtics. Curry and Durant are not finishing their careers with 11 rings. I would actually be surprised if Durant has any more than 3 rings by the time he retires.
-
Max Kellerman's argument that we need to have more superteams - so the playoffs are more exciting seems like a good idea. Just all-star games starting in the second round
-
Max Kellerman's argument that we need to have more superteams - so the playoffs are more exciting seems like a good idea. Just all-star games starting in the second round
So like, 6 super teams and 24 scrub teams? That sounds awfully boring
-
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
As much as I despise Lebron, his 1 ring with Cleveland will be worth more than any and all rings Durant wins in his career as a Warrior.
Might sound harsh, but that's how I feel about it, and I'm sure many do. Weakest move in NBA History as of today. If Lebron joins Golden State, then that would become the weakest :P
I think that's the difference between LeBum and KD - LeBum wants to be THE MAN, he wants the responsibility of being the one that molds a team. I think KD is more comfortable being one of the men. He's not the type of person who will take a team and mold it in his image.
-
Max Kellerman's argument that we need to have more superteams - so the playoffs are more exciting seems like a good idea. Just all-star games starting in the second round
So like, 6 super teams and 24 scrub teams? That sounds awfully boring
Max may have been watching too much English Premier League (or the other European soccer leagues). Few superteams at the top with a chance to win and the rest of the teams cannon fodder. So there's a few mouthwatering clashes and the rest of the games are meaningless.
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
if “all sides followed the rules” is the only condition needed to withhold nixing deals, why did David stern veto the “cp3 to the lakers” deal? The deal happened and the commissioner used his power to end the deal.
David Stern nixed the CP3 to the Lakers deal because he felt that deal was not in the best interest of the Pelicans (Hornets at the time), not because it was against the rules. Stern wasn't acting as commissioner of the league in that case, but more as the defacto owner of the team.
Not totally true....it was the owners led by Cuban and Gilbert that squashed the deal, the league office would have said yes. So if there was a best interest of basketball rule at that time they could have found something to say no to Durant’s pursie move.
Question: didn’t the league veto the trade as the de facto owner of the hornets? I don’t believe he stopped it using some power in the best interest of the league (assuming that kind of power actually exist). The nba doesn’t own the warriors and Durant wasn’t traded so how exactly can they stop the move?
Second, as I recall, the trade was vetoed by stern because he thought the hornets should trade for youth/picks (and rebuild), not for two veterans (Odom and Gasol?) making big salaries. He didn’t want a bloated payroll for a prospective owner to assume.
And, didn’t the decision essentially lead to the hornets getting A Davis? So it was the right move for the team.
So yeah, much much different situation than the Durant situation.
-
Max Kellerman's argument that we need to have more superteams - so the playoffs are more exciting seems like a good idea. Just all-star games starting in the second round
So like, 6 super teams and 24 scrub teams? That sounds awfully boring
Parity is more boring.
-
If you don't like the product, don't watch. Which is what I will do if the Celtics are eliminated. If I know who's winning and the games are not competitive I have better things to do with my free time. I do think a lot of people will look at it that way.
That's the reason NASCAR's ratings are down so much - the races are boring because the same guys finish at the top week after week.
I think I've watched one Warriors game that didn't involve the Celtics this year and it was Game 2 vs Houston. I don't think I've missed much. This GS team does nothing for me.
-
last year's playoffs were a joke, this year's playoffs, if there wasn't for the celtics, would have been a joke. only a few really good matchups.
durrant move is spineless, he is not a winner and a competitor. Boston was a perfect place for him, a young team, cap space, great cocach, horford, crowd etc. his legacy would have been real here, instead he choose a 73 win team. disgusting
snake
-
all those that think this is simply about him going to a team of his choice are ignoring the ‘cap manipulating aspect’ of taking less money to build the super team....the league can definitely and should stop that.
-
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
As much as I despise Lebron, his 1 ring with Cleveland will be worth more than any and all rings Durant wins in his career as a Warrior.
Might sound harsh, but that's how I feel about it, and I'm sure many do. Weakest move in NBA History as of today. If Lebron joins Golden State, then that would become the weakest :P
I think that's the difference between LeBum and KD - LeBum wants to be THE MAN, he wants the responsibility of being the one that molds a team. I think KD is more comfortable being one of the men. He's not the type of person who will take a team and mold it in his image.
Oh right, that's why he went to Miami ::).
-
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
As much as I despise Lebron, his 1 ring with Cleveland will be worth more than any and all rings Durant wins in his career as a Warrior.
Might sound harsh, but that's how I feel about it, and I'm sure many do. Weakest move in NBA History as of today. If Lebron joins Golden State, then that would become the weakest :P
I think that's the difference between LeBum and KD - LeBum wants to be THE MAN, he wants the responsibility of being the one that molds a team. I think KD is more comfortable being one of the men. He's not the type of person who will take a team and mold it in his image.
Oh right, that's why he went to Miami ::).
Huh? LeBron definitely was the man on that team, and he definitely contributed to the shape of that team
-
And one more thing. It is unfair to say that the warriors are this good because of durrant. They would have been this good even without him.
-
They would have been this good even without him.
How can you say this with a straight face, it is patently absurd.
-
While Durant didn't do anything against the rules, he broke the spirit of what makes sports so fun to watch in the first place. The Warriors with Curry, Thompson, Green, and Barnes would have remained a perennial title contender, if not the favorite. Durant could have also been firmly in the mix if he had chosen Boston or the Clippers. Maybe fate would have prevented San Antonio from falling apart as quickly. The New Orleans Pelicans would have also had an opportunity to contend more quickly.
The entire dynamic of the NBA playoffs would have been more interesting. We are extremely fortunate to be Celtics fans. What other up and coming team has a realistic chance to push the Warriors hard in the near future? Most fan bases in the Western Conference know that their title hopes are slim to none for the considerable future.
-
And one more thing. It is unfair to say that the warriors are this good because of durrant. They would have been this good even without him.
Your first point you made I generally agree with, I hated his decision...but to say the Warriors would be just as good without him, I just don't see it. Would they still be the favorites? Most likely. But having two top 5 players on your team instead of 1 is what takes them to another level.
You look back at that move now, Durant going to Golden State essentially shut down the NBA for a few years. Just think, if you take Durant off the Warriors and put him on literally any other team, the league would be SO much better for it and so much more wide open.
-
And one more thing. It is unfair to say that the warriors are this good because of durrant. They would have been this good even without him.
Your first point you made I generally agree with, I hated his decision...but to say the Warriors would be just as good without him, I just don't see it. Would they still be the favorites? Most likely. But having two top 5 players on your team instead of 1 is what takes them to another level.
You look back at that move now, Durant going to Golden State essentially shut down the NBA for a few years. Just think, if you take Durant off the Warriors and put him on literally any other team, the league would be SO much better for it and so much more wide open.
Durant's move literally ruins the entire dynamic of team building for the majority of organizations and players. Moves that would give teams hope in previous years are now only good enough to MAYBE get to the Conference Finals in the West.
-
all those that think this is simply about him going to a team of his choice are ignoring the ‘cap manipulating aspect’ of taking less money to build the super team....the league can definitely and should stop that.
Kevin Durant, "cap manipulator." Riiiiggghhhhhtttt.
And what exactly should the NBA do to stop people from taking a lower salary for a better job? How would that work? There is no possible method for such a thing.
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
if “all sides followed the rules” is the only condition needed to withhold nixing deals, why did David stern veto the “cp3 to the lakers” deal? The deal happened and the commissioner used his power to end the deal.
Because they own the Hornets at that time. He nixed it as a team owner, not as the commissioner. If Wyc felt Danny made a wrong move, he have the power to nix it too.
-
all those that think this is simply about him going to a team of his choice are ignoring the ‘cap manipulating aspect’ of taking less money to build the super team....the league can definitely and should stop that.
Kevin Durant, "cap manipulator." Riiiiggghhhhhtttt.
And what exactly should the NBA do to stop people from taking a lower salary for a better job? How would that work? There is no possible method for such a thing.
Agree with Boris. Are people who are against the KD move saying that if Kyrie or one of the Jays decide to take a pay cut so the Cs can keep a superteam together they will be against it?
I’ve wondered whether a player might decide they’ll do just fine if they drop a little salary to be on a better team that can win titles, figuring they’ll make it up with the extra endorsements.
-
all those that think this is simply about him going to a team of his choice are ignoring the ‘cap manipulating aspect’ of taking less money to build the super team....the league can definitely and should stop that.
Kevin Durant, "cap manipulator." Riiiiggghhhhhtttt.
And what exactly should the NBA do to stop people from taking a lower salary for a better job? How would that work? There is no possible method for such a thing.
Agree with Boris. Are people who are against the KD move saying that if Kyrie or one of the Jays decide to do that so the Cs can keep a superteam together they will be against it?
I’ve wondered whether a player might decide they’ll do just fine if they drop a little salary to be on a better team that can win titles, figuring they’ll make it up with the extra endorsements.
Right.
I mean, there are two things wrong there. One is the moral indignation about players choosing winning over money, which is just...insane.
And two, there is absolutely no practical way to implement such an idea, which you've just scratched the surface of. It's nonsense.
-
all those that think this is simply about him going to a team of his choice are ignoring the ‘cap manipulating aspect’ of taking less money to build the super team....the league can definitely and should stop that.
Kevin Durant, "cap manipulator." Riiiiggghhhhhtttt.
And what exactly should the NBA do to stop people from taking a lower salary for a better job? How would that work? There is no possible method for such a thing.
Agree with Boris. Are people who are against the KD move saying that if Kyrie or one of the Jays decide to do that so the Cs can keep a superteam together they will be against it?
I’ve wondered whether a player might decide they’ll do just fine if they drop a little salary to be on a better team that can win titles, figuring they’ll make it up with the extra endorsements.
Right.
I mean, there are two things wrong there. One is the moral indignation about players choosing winning over money, which is just...insane.
And two, there is absolutely no practical way to implement such an idea, which you've just scratched the surface of. It's nonsense.
I've long been talking about the NBA counting all max contracts the same against the cap and for the purposes of that rule deeming a max contract some percentage within the actual max. Now Durant took enough of a discount that it wouldn't have mattered, but that is very rare.
What I mean, is that there are currently 3 separate max contracts based on years of service, 25%, 30%, and 35%. I think for purposes of the salary cap, the league should count all max contracts at 30%. The team has to pay the player the actual salary, but when determining cap space, everyone is 30% (I think you could count the actual for luxury tax purposes if that was a problem for teams). I'd count any contract that is within some percentage of the maximum as a max contract so a player couldn't take a slightly less than max contract and game the system. That rule would benefit older teams and punish younger teams, but I think overall it would provide for a more balanced system.
-
The league should never have agreed to the cap spike. They could've stopped this. It was the cap spike that made this possible.
Neither Golden State nor Durant did anything wrong.
But it is silly that a championship caliber team was able to add an MVP caliber player in his prime without giving up hardly anything.
-
This seems like it is the whiny post. We should be happy with the Celtics in their current position, but instead, let's focus on how unfair it is that the NBA lets all of these good players play with each other?
Regardless of $, this isn't the first super team in league history. How do you think Knicks fans liked the '86 Celtics?
-
GSW played within the rules and did what any smart team would do to under the circumstances. KD did not do what any player would do under the circumstances. He opted to take less to play for a team that was already a super team. He’s entitled to do as he wants, but I wish he had stayed with OKC. If unhappy there I don’t blame im for leaving but to go to your already better competitor and for less $$ is low. I felt that way about Ray Allen too. But even more irritating given KDs status as an MVP caliber player. He’s within his rights of course but he left a lot of fans disappointed in him.
-
all those that think this is simply about him going to a team of his choice are ignoring the ‘cap manipulating aspect’ of taking less money to build the super team....the league can definitely and should stop that.
Kevin Durant, "cap manipulator." Riiiiggghhhhhtttt.
And what exactly should the NBA do to stop people from taking a lower salary for a better job? How would that work? There is no possible method for such a thing.
I mean, there are certainly conceivable ways they could prevent players taking less money, they're just not likely or necessarily desirable.
The league could, for example, have some kind of arbitration process by which a reasonable range of annual salary is determined for any given free agent, and players / teams may only agree to terms within that range during the normal free agency period. Only after the free agent period has concluded (i.e. July/August) would a player be able to sign for less than the stated range (i.e. for the veteran minimum).
That's an extreme example of how it could work, but it's conceivable. It'll never happen, but it's not an impossible thing either.
Anyway, we usually laud players for taking less for the sake of winning and for the better of the team, except when it's perceived to create a competitive imbalance that is unsurmountable for virtually every other team in the league to overcome.
I tend to think that a superteam that is obviously far more talented than every other team, or almost every other team, is not a bad thing for the league per se, but it becomes a big problem if that superpowered team is able to stay together for more than a year or two.
-
What amazes me most about this is it seems every player on the Warriors (except Curry) is taking less money then they could get somewhere else.
Until one of them gets tired of being under-payed, it will be hard for other teams to catch up.
-
What amazes me most about this is it seems every player on the Warriors (except Curry) is taking less money then they could get somewhere else.
Until one of them gets tired of being under-payed, it will be hard for other teams to catch up.
Not necessarily true. Didn't both Thompson and Green sign max contracts? It's just the salary cap has gone up since then.
Iggy is getting paid a lot of money too.
Durant is not getting max money right now, but the thinking has been he will get a Curry contract this off-season.
-
What amazes me most about this is it seems every player on the Warriors (except Curry) is taking less money then they could get somewhere else.
Until one of them gets tired of being under-payed, it will be hard for other teams to catch up.
Not necessarily true. Didn't both Thompson and Green sign max contracts? It's just the salary cap has gone up since then.
Iggy is getting paid a lot of money too.
Durant is not getting max money right now, but the thinking has been he will get a Curry contract this off-season.
Reports are that Klay is talking about contract extension right now instead of hitting FA. That will save GS money.
Iggy could have gotten more money from another team.
-
Look no further than the logo. It’s no coincidence that when Jerry West joined the Warriors front office they built a super team while tha Lakers crumbled.
-
Everyone can poke Durrant and say how weak the move was.... but most of those people are anti Warriors fans anyway.
Free Agents move to California all the time to take less money....whats worse to play for money or championships?
-
level in the league..the NBA should have found a way to nix him signing with GSW...At the time he signed it seemed they did not need him, but looks like they would be ‘human’ without him. For those who think the league shouldn’t interfere what if Kebron signs with GSW after this season.
Yeesh, I have to say I disagree with all of this.
1. No, the league should not have "found a way to nix" Durant signing with GSW. They had cap space, Durant was a free agent, and all parties involved played by the rules. GSW was both lucky and smart, but nothing they did was unfair.
2. GSW had just lost in the Finals, and one could argue it was the signing of Durant that made the difference between them beating losing to the Cavs or beating them. The year GSW beat the Cavs, the Cavs were without both Irving and Love during the Finals. So, in that regard, GSW did in fact need Durant.
3. If LeBron wants to sign with GSW, I see no reason the league should interfere, as long as neither side does anything against the rules. Free agents are free to sign with whichever team they want, for any salary the rules allow for. The players union might protest if LeBron did something like take the minimum, but if he really wanted to press the matter there is nothing anyone can, or should, do (aside from mocking him).
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
I absolutely respect Durant for choosing to ditch Westbrook and join a team that actually plays as a team. And as I said above, Durant was the difference between GSW losing to a healthy Cavs team the year before without him, and then beating them once he came along. He earned his Finals MVP.
Yeah I disagree. It's fine to ditch Westbrook and OKC if you felt you were being held back there. But again, to join a 73-9 team that beat your team in the WCF. Weak. His legacy will always be that no matter how many rings he wins.
-
What amazes me most about this is it seems every player on the Warriors (except Curry) is taking less money then they could get somewhere else.
Until one of them gets tired of being under-payed, it will be hard for other teams to catch up.
Not necessarily true. Didn't both Thompson and Green sign max contracts? It's just the salary cap has gone up since then.
Iggy is getting paid a lot of money too.
Durant is not getting max money right now, but the thinking has been he will get a Curry contract this off-season.
Reports are that Klay is talking about contract extension right now instead of hitting FA. That will save GS money.
Iggy could have gotten more money from another team.
That may be but it hasn't happened quite yet.
You really think Iggy could have gotten more than 16 million a year for his age 34, 35, and 36 season? I don't. He averaged 6, 4, and 3 this year. Even if he could have, it would not have been much more. Is a couple million worth playing for a non-contender?
He is being pretty well compensated.
If Durant and Thompson take discounts on long-term contracts, then this idea will be validated.
Then again, by that time, Horford and Irving may be taking discounted contracts too.
-
The league should never have agreed to the cap spike. They could've stopped this. It was the cap spike that made this possible.
Neither Golden State nor Durant did anything wrong.
But it is silly that a championship caliber team was able to add an MVP caliber player in his prime without giving up hardly anything.
This is basically the main point that everybody has a problem with. Everybody played within the rules, but something still feels unfair. GSW was lucky to have signed Klay and Draymond to long-term [old] max contracts and have Steph completely break out as a superstar on a well-below market value deal.
Everyone can poke Durrant and say how weak the move was.... but most of those people are anti Warriors fans anyway.
Free Agents move to California all the time to take less money....whats worse to play for money or championships?
This isn't true, at all. I quite liked GSW before Durant joined them. Now they all seem like a bunch of arrogant a-h0les (except Durant) even though the world was just served to them on a silver platter. It's irritating and I hope to dog somebody knocks them off soon!
-
This seems like it is the whiny post. We should be happy with the Celtics in their current position, but instead, let's focus on how unfair it is that the NBA lets all of these good players play with each other?
Regardless of $, this isn't the first super team in league history. How do you think Knicks fans liked the '86 Celtics?
Comparing the Warriors situation with the '86 Celtics doesn't exactly line up in my opinion. Nobody is saying this is the first super team, but in this debate you have to get real specific with what we're dealing with here...
Golden State isn't just a super team. They're a team that set the regular season wins record a year after already winning the title and were up 3-1 on the Cavs on the verge of going back to back and probably would have had Draymond not gone through his kick-everyone-in-the-nuts phase. And it's not like they "just" signed a free agent. They signed who most, if not everyone, considers to be the 2nd or 3rd best player in the world.
And then on Durant's side of things, it makes it impossible for me and many to not question his competitiveness. How can you not after you go and join a 73 win team that you were ONE WIN away from eliminating yourself?
I'm not necessarily putting blame on either party, because I may have done each had I been in their respective positions...but you can't deny that the optics of it all are just terrible. I don't recall hearing the '86 Celtics dealt with this sort of thing.
-
This is basically the main point that everybody has a problem with. Everybody played within the rules, but something still feels unfair.
NBA teams and NBA players alike are hyper-competitive. This is to be expected and it's what we generally want to see from them.
If you give hypercompetitive people a system that can be exploited for competitive gain, they will exploit it.
In other words, don't hate the player hate the game.
If we don't want a situation where a single team has an overwhelming likelihood of winning the title in any given season because they're so much more talented than everybody else, we need the league to put rules and processes in place that prevent teams and players from causing that to happen.
We should expect that NBA teams and NBA players will continually look for opportunities to rig things in their favor. That's what hypercompetitive people do.
-
What amazes me most about this is it seems every player on the Warriors (except Curry) is taking less money then they could get somewhere else.
Until one of them gets tired of being under-payed, it will be hard for other teams to catch up.
Not necessarily true. Didn't both Thompson and Green sign max contracts? It's just the salary cap has gone up since then.
Iggy is getting paid a lot of money too.
Durant is not getting max money right now, but the thinking has been he will get a Curry contract this off-season.
Reports are that Klay is talking about contract extension right now instead of hitting FA. That will save GS money.
Iggy could have gotten more money from another team.
That may be but it hasn't happened quite yet.
You really think Iggy could have gotten more than 16 million a year for his age 34, 35, and 36 season? I don't. He averaged 6, 4, and 3 this year. Even if he could have, it would not have been much more. Is a couple million worth playing for a non-contender?
He is being pretty well compensated.
If Durant and Thompson take discounts on long-term contracts, then this idea will be validated.
Then again, by that time, Horford and Irving may be taking discounted contracts too.
Sacramento would have given him more than that. Houston wanted him and would have paid him more had they been able to work out a sign and trade.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20750344/andre-iguodala-was-verge-leaving-golden-state-warriors
-
And one more thing. It is unfair to say that the warriors are this good because of durrant. They would have been this good even without him.
Your first point you made I generally agree with, I hated his decision...but to say the Warriors would be just as good without him, I just don't see it. Would they still be the favorites? Most likely. But having two top 5 players on your team instead of 1 is what takes them to another level.
You look back at that move now, Durant going to Golden State essentially shut down the NBA for a few years. Just think, if you take Durant off the Warriors and put him on literally any other team, the league would be SO much better for it and so much more wide open.
I think that if you take durrant away from that team, curry would be the unanymous MVP version for years to come, plus Klay would be much better. Durrant doesnt make his teammates better, like Melo. Given that Barmes would stay in that case, which is not that bad of a plan B, or an equivalent of a talent/picks they would get via trade, you have yourself a 70 win team, right?
-
This seems like it is the whiny post. We should be happy with the Celtics in their current position, but instead, let's focus on how unfair it is that the NBA lets all of these good players play with each other?
Regardless of $, this isn't the first super team in league history. How do you think Knicks fans liked the '86 Celtics?
Comparing the Warriors situation with the '86 Celtics doesn't exactly line up in my opinion. Nobody is saying this is the first super team, but in this debate you have to get real specific with what we're dealing with here...
Golden State isn't just a super team. They're a team that set the regular season wins record a year after already winning the title and were up 3-1 on the Cavs on the verge of going back to back and probably would have had Draymond not gone through his kick-everyone-in-the-nuts phase. And it's not like they "just" signed a free agent. They signed who most, if not everyone, considers to be the 2nd or 3rd best player in the world.
And then on Durant's side of things, it makes it impossible for me and many to not question his competitiveness. How can you not after you go and join a 73 win team that you were ONE WIN away from eliminating yourself?
I'm not necessarily putting blame on either party, because I may have done each had I been in their respective positions...but you can't deny that the optics of it all are just terrible. I don't recall hearing the '86 Celtics dealt with this sort of thing.
And the '86 Celtics were built via good drafting and shrewd trading, not through a super-fortunate cap situation.
-
And one more thing. It is unfair to say that the warriors are this good because of durrant. They would have been this good even without him.
Your first point you made I generally agree with, I hated his decision...but to say the Warriors would be just as good without him, I just don't see it. Would they still be the favorites? Most likely. But having two top 5 players on your team instead of 1 is what takes them to another level.
You look back at that move now, Durant going to Golden State essentially shut down the NBA for a few years. Just think, if you take Durant off the Warriors and put him on literally any other team, the league would be SO much better for it and so much more wide open.
I think that if you take durrant away from that team, curry would be the unanymous MVP version for years to come, plus Klay would be much better. Durrant doesnt make his teammates better, like Melo. Given that Barmes would stay in that case, which is not that bad of a plan B, or an equivalent of a talent/picks they would get via trade, you have yourself a 70 win team, right?
No, probably not. Houston won 65 games this year and no other team broke 60. To think that team without Durant, heck even with him, would win 70 games every single year is just not realistic. Because it doesn't happen. Other teams get better, competition improves, things get more wide open.
-
And one more thing. It is unfair to say that the warriors are this good because of durrant. They would have been this good even without him.
Your first point you made I generally agree with, I hated his decision...but to say the Warriors would be just as good without him, I just don't see it. Would they still be the favorites? Most likely. But having two top 5 players on your team instead of 1 is what takes them to another level.
You look back at that move now, Durant going to Golden State essentially shut down the NBA for a few years. Just think, if you take Durant off the Warriors and put him on literally any other team, the league would be SO much better for it and so much more wide open.
I think that if you take durrant away from that team, curry would be the unanymous MVP version for years to come, plus Klay would be much better. Durrant doesnt make his teammates better, like Melo. Given that Barmes would stay in that case, which is not that bad of a plan B, or an equivalent of a talent/picks they would get via trade, you have yourself a 70 win team, right?
No, probably not. Houston won 65 games this year and no other team broke 60. To think that team without Durant, heck even with him, would win 70 games every single year is just not realistic. Because it doesn't happen. Other teams get better, competition improves, things get more wide open.
and you know people get hurt, you know like Curry. Or they just lose focus and come to the realization that the regular season really just doesn't matter and put it in cruise control.
That said, if they somehow stayed healthy and focused, they absolutely could still be winning 70 games a year. It just doesn't matter so they don't bother trying.
-
What i meant was, that is still a team to beat by far
-
Honestly, Durant can go on to win 5 rings, but no one will care. No one will respect it.
As much as I despise Lebron, his 1 ring with Cleveland will be worth more than any and all rings Durant wins in his career as a Warrior.
Might sound harsh, but that's how I feel about it, and I'm sure many do. Weakest move in NBA History as of today. If Lebron joins Golden State, then that would become the weakest :P
I think that's the difference between LeBum and KD - LeBum wants to be THE MAN, he wants the responsibility of being the one that molds a team. I think KD is more comfortable being one of the men. He's not the type of person who will take a team and mold it in his image.
Oh right, that's why he went to Miami ::).
Huh? LeBron definitely was the man on that team, and he definitely contributed to the shape of that team
Statistically, yes, but not in crunch time. Miami was always Wade's team, imo, with Lebron routinely deferring to the former, as well as that other guy, in the biggest moments.
-
Hating on players because they want to play with other talented players is goofy. These are all competitive athletes that want to win every year. The way to do so is to surround yourself with other good players that want to win. It really is this simple. Danny and Kyrie want Kawhi, Paul George, KAT, and Anthony Davis. They're not concerned about how fans on blogs interpret their roster building.
And yes, Durant is amazing. I think he will be a top 10 player in league history.
-
The fact that GSW misses Igoudala so much illustrates the ‘injustice’ of Durant taking less money to allow them keep Iggy.
-
Hating on players because they want to play with other talented players is goofy. These are all competitive athletes that want to win every year. The way to do so is to surround yourself with other good players that want to win. It really is this simple. Danny and Kyrie want Kawhi, Paul George, KAT, and Anthony Davis. They're not concerned about how fans on blogs interpret their roster building.
And yes, Durant is amazing. I think he will be a top 10 player in league history.
Then cancel the salary cap and allow true competition.
-
Wonder if Durant will run to Houston if they lose to Houston.
-
Wonder if Durant will run to Houston if they lose to Houston.
The bigger question for me is, if they do lose to Houston is their ownership group really going to keep paying that kind of salary, especially with the repeater tax getting ready to kick in. It is one thing if you are winning titles to pay obscene amounts of luxury tax. It is entirely another thing to do it for a team that didn't even reach the NBA Finals.
-
Wonder if Durant will run to Houston if they lose to Houston.
The bigger question for me is, if they do lose to Houston is their ownership group really going to keep paying that kind of salary, especially with the repeater tax getting ready to kick in. It is one thing if you are winning titles to pay obscene amounts of luxury tax. It is entirely another thing to do it for a team that didn't even reach the NBA Finals.
Well, they may be able to sustain it for a while with this current group knowing they really do have an incredible team. My hope is that GSW loses in the WCF this year and players like Durant and Klay decide they want to make actual max dollars. If you are easily winning championships year after year and becoming a dynasty, then you are probably more content taking a discount; but if you can't even make the finals, then you might start to question why you are playing for so much less than your counterparts.
-
zero assists...22 shots?
-
zero assists...22 shots?
-
If Golden State loses this series or really ANY series in the next 5 years, they should all retire in shame. Just a shameful, shameful thing for a team that stacked to ever lose. They added an MVP to a 73 win team. They are all in their prime. There is no excuse for them to ever be defeated. Vegas had their odds of winning the title greater than a #1 seed beating a #16 seed in the NCAA tournament.
If they lose - they should all just quit basketball.
-
If Golden State loses this series or really ANY series in the next 5 years, they should all retire in shame. Just a shameful, shameful thing for a team that stacked to ever lose. They added an MVP to a 73 win team. They are all in their prime. There is no excuse for them to ever be defeated. Vegas had their odds of winning the title greater than a #1 seed beating a #16 seed in the NCAA tournament.
If they lose - they should all just quit basketball.
Couldn't agree more.
-
The fact that GSW misses Igoudala so much illustrates the ‘injustice’ of Durant taking less money to allow them keep Iggy.
It also points out how much more impressive Celtic depth is given how well we continue to play despite 3 injuries 2 of whom are to starters.
We’re a better team.