Bobby Marks like our KD chances, but not as much as OKCs

[Endless Paradise]

My point is that he was able to excel without Westbrook dominating the ball.  That will be true in Boston except they will have a much better team around him than the Westbrookless Thunder.  It will give him an opportunity to win an MVP and contend for a title.

He excelled without Westbrook to the point that he burnt himself out. He won MVP, but at what cost? The cost of having pretty much nothing left in the tank by the time the most important point of the year came around.

Also, a largely Westbrook-less Thunder won 59 games, so I don't quite agree with the "the Celtics are better than that team" argument.

Considering we were also fighting injuries with Crowder, Bradley, and Smart/IT, you could also argue that the Celtics could've certainly won at least 50-52 games. So we're literally like a tier below, but with Durant, and another max free agent/Allstar, we're pretty close, and in an easier conference.

That's fine and I wouldn't disagree with any of that, though I think the "easier conference" argument is grossly overrated since, you know, it doesn't really matter if you're still having to go against LeBron's team and don't have enough to get past him. None of what you said constitutes a team that is "much better" than that Thunder team, though. The Celtics haven't even made it out of the first round yet, something the Thunder managed to do without Westbrook.

[knuckleballer]

Also, a largely Westbrook-less Thunder won 59 games, so I don't quite agree with the "the Celtics are better than that team" argument.

Without Westbrook and Durant, the Thunder were awful.  The Celtics won 48 games and don't need to gut their roster to add Durant. They can even add another max while keeping their corps together.

[Endless Paradise]

Also, a largely Westbrook-less Thunder won 59 games, so I don't quite agree with the "the Celtics are better than that team" argument.

Without Westbrook and Durant, the Thunder were awful.  The Celtics won 48 games and don't need to gut their roster to add Durant. They can even add another max while keeping their corps together.

Yes, the Thunder without two of their best players were awful. However, you specifically were referring to the Westbrook-less Thunder, i.e. the Thunder with Durant, but no Westbrook. They finished that year with a considerably better record than the Celtics did.

And it's not exactly surprising that a team without its two best players would be bad. You think the Warriors would fare well without Steph and Draymond? Or the Cavs without LeBron and Kyrie? The Clippers without CP3 and Blake? Yeah, the Thunder were bad without their two best players, as would be virtually every other good team in the league.

[BitterJim]

Also, a largely Westbrook-less Thunder won 59 games, so I don't quite agree with the "the Celtics are better than that team" argument.

Without Westbrook and Durant, the Thunder were awful.  The Celtics won 48 games and don't need to gut their roster to add Durant. They can even add another max while keeping their corps together.

Yes, the Thunder without two of their best players were awful. However, you specifically were referring to the Westbrook-less Thunder, i.e. the Thunder with Durant, but no Westbrook. They finished that year with a considerably better record than the Celtics did.

And it's not exactly surprising that a team without its two best players would be bad. You think the Warriors would fare well without Steph and Draymond? Or the Cavs without LeBron and Kyrie? The Clippers without CP3 and Blake?

Comparing the Thunder with Durant but no Westbrook to the (Durant- and Westbrook-less) Celtics doesn't really make sense.  Of COURSE the Thunder with that year's MVP had a better regular season.  It would make more sense to compare the Celtics to the Durant-less Thunder (with Westbrook) to compare them for next year, and (assuming Westbrook leaves next year) the Durant- and Westbrook-less Thunder

[Endless Paradise]

Also, a largely Westbrook-less Thunder won 59 games, so I don't quite agree with the "the Celtics are better than that team" argument.

Without Westbrook and Durant, the Thunder were awful.  The Celtics won 48 games and don't need to gut their roster to add Durant. They can even add another max while keeping their corps together.

Yes, the Thunder without two of their best players were awful. However, you specifically were referring to the Westbrook-less Thunder, i.e. the Thunder with Durant, but no Westbrook. They finished that year with a considerably better record than the Celtics did.

And it's not exactly surprising that a team without its two best players would be bad. You think the Warriors would fare well without Steph and Draymond? Or the Cavs without LeBron and Kyrie? The Clippers without CP3 and Blake?

Comparing the Thunder with Durant but no Westbrook to the (Durant- and Westbrook-less) Celtics doesn't really make sense.  Of COURSE the Thunder with that year's MVP had a better regular season.  It would make more sense to compare the Celtics to the Durant-less Thunder (with Westbrook) to compare them for next year, and (assuming Westbrook leaves next year) the Durant- and Westbrook-less Thunder

I wasn't the one who made the initial comparison to the Westbrook-less Durant.

[knuckleballer]

Also, a largely Westbrook-less Thunder won 59 games, so I don't quite agree with the "the Celtics are better than that team" argument.

Without Westbrook and Durant, the Thunder were awful.  The Celtics won 48 games and don't need to gut their roster to add Durant. They can even add another max while keeping their corps together.

Yes, the Thunder without two of their best players were awful. However, you specifically were referring to the Westbrook-less Thunder, i.e. the Thunder with Durant, but no Westbrook. They finished that year with a considerably better record than the Celtics did.

And it's not exactly surprising that a team without its two best players would be bad. You think the Warriors would fare well without Steph and Draymond? Or the Cavs without LeBron and Kyrie? The Clippers without CP3 and Blake? Yeah, the Thunder were bad without their two best players, as would be virtually every other good team in the league.

Of course any team without their best players won't be as good.  The Thunder without Durant and Westbrook were awful.  The Celtics won 48 games last year.  Add Durant and they will be better than a Westbrook-less Thunder.  Replace AJ and Sully with someone like Horford and they are a contender.  My point is that he can contend with the Celtics and have a better chance at winning the MVP without Westbrook dominating the ball.