# Kevin Durant signs a two-year/$54.3 deal with the Golden State Warriors



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749990950286622720


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: Kevin Durant to the Celtics?! NOOOOO!*

Whoa....


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Kevin Durant to the Celtics?! NOOOOO!*

Fake account. Just kidding.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Kevin Durant to the Celtics?! NOOOOO!*

:vuvuzela:


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: Kevin Durant to the Celtics?! NOOOOO!*

I FUCKING HATE YOU BASEL


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: Kevin Durant to the Celtics?! NOOOOO!*

OMG. YOU actually went this far with it.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

*Re: Kevin Durant to the Celtics?! NOOOOO! [Basel duped by fake account]*

basel..posting a troll thread results in 15 infraction points. You are banned for 15 days.


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

*Re: Kevin Durant to the Celtics?! NOOOOO! [Basel duped by fake account]*

Basel gonna Basel


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Kevin Durant to the Celtics?! NOOOOO! [Basel duped by fake account]*

:laugh:


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Basel duped by fake account*

Okay so supposedly, it's down to OKC or GSW.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: Basel duped by fake account*

I'm seeing C's still in it. But decision will be made tomorrow.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749990950286622720


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749991847473229824


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*

Wow. He did it. Really thought he was going to give it a shot in OKC one more time. That team is going to be insane.


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*

The rich get richer


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/18688294600
From 2010...I guess everyone changes their minds.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*

PG - Curry
SG - Klay
SF - KD
PF - Draymond
C - Who cares?


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*

I'd imagine he's a lot more worried about his legacy now than he was in 2010. Gotta get that 'ship.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749994622156288000


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*



Basel said:


> PG - Curry
> SG - Klay
> SF - KD
> PF - Draymond
> C - Who cares?


My sources tell me a Klay Thompson for Nikola Vucevic deal is in the works.

:yesyesyes:


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Surely this means Westbrook leaves after next season, and OKC will be in full rebuild mode at that point.


----------



## PauloCatarino2 (Jul 2, 2016)

What the F!?!?!? Kevin Durant jumped ship?????


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

is andrew bogut a fa?

Do they still have festus' bird rights or do they need to renounce his rights to fit KD in.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Well, Lebron's off the hook for 2010. This is worse than that.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

That Player Option after the 1st year is interesting...


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm going to take the unpopular opinion that this doesn't make the Warriors better. I think it was Sir Patchwork that said this doubles down on their strengths and doesn't help them with things like defense and rebounding.

This kills the competition in the West. The West is probably worse than the East now.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Well, Lebron's off the hook for 2010. This is worse than that.


2010 was a lot more about how he did it than what he did.

Now if Durant goes and has a press conference with the rest of the guys and they start counting on their fingers and toes how many championships they are going to win it will be a different story.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

So is there a chance they break 73-9? Not that it would matter without a ring.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

29380 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749994622156288000


I would try to get Bogut back and still have him start at Center if I were the Warriors. 

The Warriors small ball line up will be insane.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

jayk009 said:


> is andrew bogut a fa?
> 
> Do they still have festus' bird rights or do they need to renounce his rights to fit KD in.


I think they have to renounce on Festus and Barnes and look for a trade partner for Bogut to clear cap to make this work


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

Adam said:


> I'm going to take the unpopular opinion that this doesn't make the Warriors better. I think it was Sir Patchwork that said this doubles down on their strengths and doesn't help them with things like defense and rebounding.
> 
> This kills the competition in the West. The West is probably worse than the East now.


I actually agree with you. There isnt 4 different basketballs on the court all that is gonna happen is Curry and Klay's PPG are gonna go down.


----------



## PauloCatarino2 (Jul 2, 2016)

Absolutely shocked. And disappointed at KD. 
Not only this is the most blatant (and shamefull, IMHO) ring-chase since "Lebron to South Beach" it also means the doom of the Thunder franchise for many, many years (cause it's sure as hell Westbrook won't be sticking to a losing franchise).

F!


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

jayk009 said:


> is andrew bogut a fa?
> 
> Do they still have festus' bird rights or do they need to renounce his rights to fit KD in.


Bogut is as good as gone. Ezeli was just made a free agent.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Basel said:


> So is there a chance they break 73-9? Not that it would matter without a ring.


Well they're not going to lose to the Thunder next year so they're already on the right track.

:2ti:


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino2 said:


> Absolutely shocked. And disappointed at KD.
> Not only this is the most blatant (and shamefull, IMHO) ring-chase since "Lebron to South Beach" it also means the doom of the Thunder franchise for many, many years (cause it's sure as hell Westbrook won't be sticking to a losing franchise).
> 
> F!


"fuck the thunder anyway - Clay Bennett can go burn in hell" - the city of Seattle


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Basel said:


> So is there a chance they break 73-9? Not that it would matter without a ring.


I doubt it after last year. There's no reason to. I'd expect they scale starter minutes back slightly (especially if Iguodala will be starting), play the bench more and only play to make sure they have home court. Their guys are going to be playing a lot of games over the next several years.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Westbrook is going to put up some insane numbers next year.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

JNice said:


> I doubt it after last year. There's no reason to. I'd expect they scale starter minutes back slightly (especially if Iguodala will be starting), play the bench more and only play to make sure they have home court. Their guys are going to be playing a lot of games over the next several years.


who do they have on their bench at this point?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

JNice said:


> I doubt it after last year. There's no reason to. I'd expect they scale starter minutes back slightly (especially if Iguodala will be starting), play the bench more and only play to make sure they have home court. Their guys are going to be playing a lot of games over the next several years.


My thoughts as well. I think they saw this year that breaking the record was nice but ultimately didn't matter to them. They'll get home court and with all the blowouts coming their way, anyway, the starters will get plenty of rest.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Christmas Day game: Warriors vs. Cavs or Warriors vs. Thunder?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

We also already know the two teams in next year's Finals.

San Antonio doesn't have to deal with the Thunder anymore, but the main reason the Thunder were San Antonio's kryptonite is now on the Warriors. And in the East, it would take a LeBron injury to knock out Cleveland.

Has the two Finals teams ever been such a lock before? I think this is the most likely Finals matchup in history.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

PauloCatarino2 said:


> Absolutely shocked. And disappointed at KD.
> Not only this is the most blatant (and shamefull, IMHO) ring-chase since "Lebron to South Beach" it also means the doom of the Thunder franchise for many, many years (cause it's sure as hell Westbrook won't be sticking to a losing franchise).
> 
> F!


This is more blatant than Lebron to south beach. The Warriors already won a ring with this core and broke the regular-season wins record last season. Miami lost in the first round in the 2010 playoffs and broke that team up for the most part in order to sign Lebron and Bosh. At least Lebron was starting from the ground up with a superteam.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Imagine the Warriors lose next year. What would that say about KD's legacy? And if he wins, how much does it add to it?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

In the course of a few years, OKC will have lost James Harden, Kevin Durant and possible Russell Westbrook.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

He's going to win a ring now eventually. The only question is how many.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Basel said:


> In the course of a few years, OKC will have lost James Harden, Kevin Durant and possible Russell Westbrook.


All because of that Kendrick Perkins contract. Danny Ainge the mastermind @Bogg


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> who do they have on their bench at this point?


Livingston, Barbosa, Varejao. They can start playing Kevin Looney some. I'm not sure if its possible but I can see them trying to keep McAdoo and Speights around.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749992529450250240


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Weak on KD's part.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Basel said:


> Imagine the Warriors lose next year. What would that say about KD's legacy? And if he wins, how much does it add to it?


Here go these SAS questions. It's FA and we all knew that the Warriors had a good chance in landing him. The have the best starting in the NBA right now and when you have that you dont need much of a bench.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

OneBadLT123 said:


> Weak on KD's part.


It's called being an Unrestricted FA….


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

It won't have the same impact, but San Antonio is probably doing everything they can now to get Pau Gasol.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Pablo5 said:


> It's called being an Unrestricted FA….


It's called being a bitch.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

JNice said:


> Livingston, Barbosa, Varejao. They can start playing Kevin Looney some. I'm not sure if its possible but I can see them trying to keep McAdoo and Speights around.


that's not that sexy but they'll probably be able to add a couple decent guys willing to take the vet's min for a ride to the parade


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Adam said:


> All because of that Kendrick Perkins contract. Danny Ainge the mastermind @Bogg


They easily could have kept everyone. There was no hard math to even be done - they've been among the most profitable teams in the league and would have had to dip into tax territory for a single season.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Adam said:


> It's called being a bitch.



You feel the same way about LeBron going to Miami?


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

I'm surprised he actually made the choice to leave but in a sense it doesn't surprise me. I never thought Durant really had that selfish, alpha dog attitude he needed to live up to what others wanted out of him. I thought OKC should have traded Durant last year, got a bunch of assets back and built around Westbrook who, though flawed, was their real alpha dog. They tried to act like those guys were playing nice together but you could see they didn't really fully mesh. Victor Oladipo has probably had a pretty emotional ride the last couple weeks.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I don't mind the decision, but I don't really understand why people like it so much. Offense was never Golden States problem. They fail on the rare occasion small ball doesn't work for them. This doesn't really change that.

I think KD to the Spurs would have made a better team than KD to the Warriors.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Man, I really thought he was staying for another year in OKC.

How pissed is Russ right now? Anyway.

Durant will be a hell of an add for the Warriors. Curry/Thompson/Durant is easily the most potent scoring trio we've ever seen, especially from a 3 point perspective. Durant can play that smallball four that makes them so dangerous too.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Basel said:


> It won't have the same impact, but San Antonio is probably doing everything they can now to get Pau Gasol.


I hope so, but what we really needed was a PG. As TP is getting a bit older and injuries has been an issue


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Basel said:


> You feel the same way about LeBron going to Miami?


The whole NBA game is a competition within the economic game of the rules that are collectively bargained. A championship team, maxed out on cap space, suddenly gets a massive infusion of cash without having had to incorporate foresight or sacrifice is simply random and goes against the principles of balance. Neither side had to try very hard in this. Keep in mind, Miami planned out their 2010 cap space five years in advance and had to suffer multiple seasons of failure for the chance to execute their plan. This is just the sudden incorporation of a new economy into the old economy being used to the advantage of a ring-chasing, Stretch Armstrong looking bitch.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

would be funny if all the owners colluded and refused to trade with the Warriors so they can't clear enough space.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

R-Star said:


> I don't mind the decision, but I don't really understand why people like it so much. Offense was never Golden States problem. They fail on the rare occasion small ball doesn't work for them. This doesn't really change that.
> 
> I think KD to the Spurs would have made a better team than KD to the Warriors.


There's more redundancy with the best players on SA. Durant and Leonard would both be that SF/PF type, and obviously they could play together and everything, but Durant plugs in at (and massively upgrades) the Harrison Barnes spot in a way more obvious way to me in San Fran.

Plus the appeal of having a team where three of your starters are three of the best three point shooters in the league is unparalleled.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

BlakeJesus said:


> Man, I really thought he was staying for another year in OKC.
> 
> How pissed is Russ right now? Anyway.
> 
> Durant will be a hell of an add for the Warriors. Curry/Thompson/Durant is easily the most potent scoring trio we've ever seen, especially from a 3 point perspective. Durant can play that smallball four that makes them so dangerous too.


What this does is allow KD to work with all the space in the world now.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Pablo5 said:


> It's called being an Unrestricted FA….


OH really? WOW I had no idea. Thanks for clarifying that for me!!

.
.
.
.
....... No fucking shit dude, thanks captain obvious.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I don't mind the decision, but I don't really understand why people like it so much. Offense was never Golden States problem. They fail on the rare occasion small ball doesn't work for them. This doesn't really change that.
> 
> I think KD to the Spurs would have made a better team than KD to the Warriors.


You might be right on the last part, but... the 2 things that made GS so devastating were

a) their insane runs to put you out of games
b) that even if you were playing great GS could still gain a point on you on many possessions

Durant makes both of those even tougher.

But nobody should kid themselves, there is only one ball and nothing is guaranteed. They are for sure the favorites, without question, but as proven last year no team is unbeatable.


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

good on KD. get that ring. all the people calling him a bitch now would be the first to deride his career as meaningless or having an asterisk next to it if he retired without winning one.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

BlakeJesus said:


> There's more redundancy with the best players on SA. Durant and Leonard would both be that SF/PF type, and obviously they could play together and everything, but Durant plugs in at (and massively upgrades) the Harrison Barnes spot in a way more obvious way to me in San Fran.
> 
> Plus the appeal of having a team where three of your starters are three of the best three point shooters in the league is unparalleled.


When Barnes was playing horribly offensively though they just plugged in Iggy. It's not like either guy was ever a drain on the team. They didn't need to be anything more than solid 4th options.

There's only one ball for Steph, Klay and Durant. 

Steph shot 20.2 times, KD 19.2, and Klay 17.3 last season. In comparison Kawhi shot 15.1.

My point is, Golden State doesn't need that offense. Steph, Klay and KD will all have to take shots from each other now, while they were already extremely efficient. Where in comparison the Spurs could have really used KD's offense without him really taking too many shots from the rest of the team. They weren't full of high usage guys like Golden State.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Basel said:


> You feel the same way about LeBron going to Miami?


I think this is different. Lebron went to a team as the alpha, Who aside from Wade built a team from scratch while staying under the then cap.

This is going to a team you epically choked to wile being up 3-1 in a series. This is a player who called out players publicly who "wanted to play in Miami or LA"

Whatever though, this is the new NBA I guess. The only reason why a 73-9 team was able to get him was because the cap went up otherwise they would have had ZERO chance to. 

Whats the point in playing an NBA season anymore aside from revenue? 30 teams in the NBA in the blink of an eye just became irrelevant instantly. Outside of the Spurs or Cavs, realistically nobody has a chance.


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

LeBron's decision has changed the NBA forever, and for what? it was because of incompetent management. they never put a team around Bron, so he had to create his own.

with KD that wasn't quite the same case, but he gave it 9 good years and nothing happened. its time for a change.

next up is Anthony Davis. I knew when he signed last year what would happen in the future. The Pelicans would never be able to support him with a functional roster. he'll pull the heel turn too, the only question is when.

all-time greats now hold the power in their hands instead of dictating to tradition which said only management was allowed to make moves like this.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

JT2 said:


> good on KD. get that ring. all the people calling him a bitch now would be the first to deride his career as meaningless or having an asterisk next to it if he retired without winning one.


Barkely 
Ewing
Malone

etc…..


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

Would be funny if Curry decided to leave GS next year.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

I feel really bad for the Thunder. They've done a model job of drafting and team building and now they are about to lose superstars in consecutive years.

Parity in the NBA going by the wayside...


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

R-Star said:


> When Barnes was playing horribly offensively though they just plugged in Iggy. It's not like either guy was ever a drain on the team. They didn't need to be anything more than solid 4th options.
> 
> There's only one ball for Steph, Klay and Durant.
> 
> ...


R-star u are the biggest bitch!!!!!!! I thought you hated bbb.net u asssssss!!!

Jk, welcome back


But I think the key is that if they have any kind of issues..they can trade away Klay for a very very nice package with good complimentary players..and teams will be lining up to trade for him.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*



Kreutz35 said:


> I'd imagine he's a lot more worried about his legacy now than he was in 2010. Gotta get that 'ship.


Caddying for Steph Curry ain't gonna help his legacy. Especially if Cleveland wins again next year. I imagine that LeBron is grinning from ear to ear, though. In the last 24 hours Durant has turned him into the most beloved player of the NBA's general public.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

kbdullah said:


> I feel really bad for the Thunder. They've done a model job of drafting and team building and now they are about to lose superstars in consecutive years.
> 
> Parity in the NBA going by the wayside...


I mean if you had to choose where would you live if you where an NBA star Cali or Oklahoma which would you pick?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

FSH said:


> I mean if you had to choose where would you live if you where an NBA star Cali or Oklahoma which would you pick?


Oh, this isn't anything about lifestyle. This is Durant wanting to guarantee that he wins a ring. People can feel however they want about it, it's his choice to make, but it's pure ring-chasing.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

As an OKC fan, this sucks, but I try to maintain perspective and realize that Durant gave his best years to this city. His best days are behind him if we're being honest, and I said that during this past season. He'll never have a season better than his MVP season. 

As an NBA fan, this sucks even more. More than making Golden State better (I can see the argument both ways), it crippled OKC. Golden State has a better chance at making the finals by virtue of the fact that OKC can no longer compete with them. GS-Cleveland finals again is too likely for my taste. Only San Antonio can prevent it at this point.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

FSH said:


> I mean if you had to choose where would you live if you where an NBA star Cali or Oklahoma which would you pick?


California, but stacking 4 of the top, lets say 12 players on the same team? Overkill. If OKC can't do it w/ their management, then what hope to other small market franchises have?


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Oh, this isn't anything about lifestyle. This is Durant wanting to guarantee that he wins a ring. People can feel however they want about it, it's his choice to make, but it's pure ring-chasing.


I think it has something to do with the lifestyle his camp isnt stupid. The KD Brand will grow and sell alot more in Oakland and Cali then it will in OKC and Oklahoma 

KD is a superstar but his brand always seemed to be lacking. Maybe i am wrong though


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jayk009 said:


> R-star u are the biggest bitch!!!!!!! I thought you hated bbb.net u asssssss!!!
> 
> Jk, welcome back
> 
> ...


They're a better team, the clear favorite to be sure. I'm not arguing that. Just pointing out this did nothing to strengthen their weakness from last season.

It's basically like racing an over powered lamborghini against stock race cars and just dominating them. Problem is it only has pretty decent tires and it skids off the track right before hitting the finish line. Instead of fixing the problem before the next race, they just swap out the motor for an even more powerful one. They're running 400 horsepower more than any other team now, but they still have the same tires that skidded them off the track in the finals.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

So what haul do we think OKC gets for Westbrook, and where does he get traded?


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

The only thing this hurts is their depth. Which they should be able to replace with ring chasers. Durant is Barnes on steroids and he will get his minutes..and despite GS offensive prowess they really struggled to get their offense flowing in the Finals. And I think having a guy like Durant will only help to remedy that from happening again


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

kbdullah said:


> So what haul do we think OKC gets for Westbrook, and where does he get traded?



Boston.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

FSH said:


> I think it has something to do with the lifestyle his camp isnt stupid. The KD Brand will grow and sell alot more in Oakland and Cali then it will in OKC and Oklahoma
> 
> KD is a superstar but his brand always seemed to be lacking. Maybe i am wrong though


It's nothing to do with the lifestyle, and it's nothing to do with marketing - he's Steph Curry's sidekick now. He gets to piggyback on GS's success, but actually beating them would have been bigger for his brand. It's about rings. Going to the Warriors gave him his best shot at a ring, so that's what he did. 

Like I said, people can respect him for making a pure basketball decision about winning or they can not respect it as a cop-out in joining your biggest competition so that you don't have to play against them anymore, but it's about KD making sure he didn't retire without any rings.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

l0st1 said:


> The only thing this hurts is their depth. Which they should be able to replace with ring chasers. Durant is Barnes on steroids and he will get his minutes..and despite GS offensive prowess they really struggled to get their offense flowing in the Finals. And I think having a guy like Durant will only help to remedy that from happening again


Agreed. Being able to let KD take over when Steph and at times Klay were choking in the Finals is about the best option anyone could ever ask for. I don't think any team could have the talent on the floor and behind the bench to lock down all 3 at once.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

jayk009 said:


> Boston.


I'm really wondering if this leads to some preemptive tear-downs out West - Blake, Chris Paul, and Westbrook are all free agents next summer (as well as Durant, he may just bank a ring and leave), and you'd have to imagine the East is looking a bit more appealing now. If Ainge could pull off joint Westbrook-Blake acquisitions........I mean, that'd be something.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Best team ever , on paper at least. I don't think there has ever been a more stacked team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It will be interesting to see how Durant transitions into a motion offense. He has been on an isolation heavy team for a decade, and before that there was no accountability because he was just better than everyone (College and HS). So really he has never had to play the way GS plays. 

Russell Westbrook takes all the blame for the Thunder being an isolation heavy team, but Durant is every bit as guilty. He spent far too many possessions at the top of the key calling for the ball while heavily defended. 

If he doesn't transition smoothly, he could really fuck up Golden State's system. Of course, they'd still have a ton of talent and win a ton of games, but the system that won them 73 would be compromised.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> As an OKC fan, this sucks, but I try to maintain perspective and realize that Durant gave his best years to this city. His best days are behind him if we're being honest, and I said that during this past season. He'll never have a season better than his MVP season.
> 
> As an NBA fan, this sucks even more. More than making Golden State better (I can see the argument both ways), it crippled OKC. Golden State has a better chance at making the finals by virtue of the fact that OKC can no longer compete with them. GS-Cleveland finals again is too likely for my taste. Only San Antonio can prevent it at this point.


I feel really bad for you OKC guys. It isn't like management wasn't trying to make moves to keep the team competitive. In all honesty I feel 100% confident saying this...Had Durant stayed I feel next year was your year. The players are right, the coaching is superb and I feel as if Russ turned a corner last year. 

Whatever though, I feel as if KD had a lot of chirping in his ears about this and welp, here we are. 

It really sucks watching a team go from on the cusp of dynasty to essentially zero chance.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

My favorite sub-story of this so far!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750010761200619521


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

kbdullah said:


> I feel really bad for the Thunder. They've done a model job of drafting and team building and now they are about to lose superstars in consecutive years.
> 
> Parity in the NBA going by the wayside...


The Nba has changed. These era of players dont care to retire in one place. Chasing ships is exactly what they should do. OKC had several to build on something and they failed.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It will be interesting to see how Durant transitions into a motion offense. He has been on an isolation heavy team for a decade, and before that there was no accountability because he was just better than everyone (College and HS). So really he has never had to play the way GS plays.
> 
> Russell Westbrook takes all the blame for the Thunder being an isolation heavy team, but Durant is every bit as guilty. He spent far too many possessions at the top of the key calling for the ball while heavily defended.
> 
> If he doesn't transition smoothly, he could really fuck up Golden State's system. Of course, they'd still have a ton of talent and win a ton of games, but the system that won them 73 would be compromised.



A risk they're willing to take. It'll take time before he's fully gelling with the team but he will get to that point. He's not fucking anything up for them. He's making everything easier.


----------



## PauloCatarino2 (Jul 2, 2016)

Bogg said:


> I'm really wondering if this leads to some preemptive tear-downs out West - Blake, Chris Paul, and Westbrook are all free agents next summer (as well as Durant, he may just bank a ring and leave), and you'd have to imagine the East is looking a bit more appealing now. *If Ainge could pull off joint Westbrook-Blake acquisitions........*I mean, that'd be something.


I sure hope something like that happens soon. Not for the Celtics, off course. Fuck them. 
Cause next NBA season just lost a whole lotta interest. 
Barring some humongous bad luck, the 2017 NBA Finals will be Cavs vs Warriors again. Whoop-de-do.

F! all this. A couple seasons ago Chris Paul couldn't play with Kobe Bryant. But now Kevin Durant is gonna play with Stephen Curry on a tem that just went 73-9?????


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It will be interesting to see how Durant transitions into a motion offense. He has been on an isolation heavy team for a decade, and before that there was no accountability because he was just better than everyone (College and HS). So really he has never had to play the way GS plays.
> 
> Russell Westbrook takes all the blame for the Thunder being an isolation heavy team, but Durant is every bit as guilty. He spent far too many possessions at the top of the key calling for the ball while heavily defended.
> 
> If he doesn't transition smoothly, he could really fuck up Golden State's system. Of course, they'd still have a ton of talent and win a ton of games, but the system that won them 73 would be compromised.


If you were to build a forward in a lab to plug into Golden State's system you'd probably build Durant. I suppose theoretically he could decide not to fit in, although I seriously doubt it after making this decision, but skills-wise the fit is seamless.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Cris said:


> My favorite sub-story of this so far!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750010761200619521



Even better is that The Based God has lifted the curse on KD.


----------



## Goulet (Jun 26, 2011)

say what you want... the reason gsw didnt repeat was because barnes kept missing open shots.

durant wont

saying he should go to spurs is laughable


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

PauloCatarino2 said:


> F! all this. A couple seasons ago Chris Paul couldn't play with Kobe Bryant. But now Kevin Durant is gonna play with Stephen Curry on a tem that just went 73-9?????


The league didn't veto the Chris Paul trade because it would have made the Lakers too good, the trade got vetoed because it was a shitty trade for New Orleans that saddled them with bad contracts and gave them no good picks or star prospects. It would have made the team harder to sell, and the collective ownership vetoed the deal on those grounds.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

OneBadLT123 said:


> I feel really bad for you OKC guys. It isn't like management wasn't trying to make moves to keep the team competitive. In all honesty I feel 100% confident saying this...Had Durant stayed I feel next year was your year. The players are right, the coaching is superb and I feel as if Russ turned a corner last year.
> 
> Whatever though, I feel as if KD had a lot of chirping in his ears about this and welp, here we are.
> 
> It really sucks watching a team go from on the cusp of dynasty to essentially zero chance.


Parity in the NBA is the big loser. When only 2-3 teams can beat GS, and the best player on one of them jumps to GS, it's a bad day for the game.


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

Bogg said:


> If you were to build a forward in a lab to plug into Golden State's system you'd probably build Durant. I suppose theoretically he could decide not to fit in, although I seriously doubt it after making this decision, but skills-wise the fit is seamless.


yep. especially on defense. he is even longer and more athletic than Barnes. with him next to Dray/Klay, teams are going to have problems scoring on them.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

PauloCatarino2 said:


> I sure hope something like that happens soon. Not for the Celtics, off course. Fuck them.
> Cause next NBA season just lost a whole lotta interest.
> Barring some humongous bad luck, the 2017 NBA Finals will be Cavs vs Warriors again. Whoop-de-do.
> 
> F! all this. A couple seasons ago Chris Paul couldn't play with Kobe Bryant. But now Kevin Durant is gonna play with Stephen Curry on a tem that just went 73-9?????


Laker fans are salty ass hell, lmao


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Bogg said:


> If you were to build a forward in a lab to plug into Golden State's system you'd probably build Durant. I suppose theoretically he could decide not to fit in, although I seriously doubt it after making this decision, but skills-wise the fit is seamless.


The person that's going to be unhappy is the one that just got reduced to a 3 & D player.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Thunder front office statements: 



> “Kevin's contributions to our organization during his nine years were profound, on and off the court," wrote Thunder Chairman Clayton I. Bennett. "He helped the Thunder grow and succeed in immeasurable ways and impacted the community just the same. We thank him for his leadership, his play, and how he represented Oklahoma City and the entire state of Oklahoma.”
> 
> “Kevin made an indelible mark on the Thunder organization and the state of Oklahoma as a founding father of this franchise," Thunder Executive Vice President and General Manager Sam Presti wrote. "We can't adequately articulate what he meant to the foundation of this franchise and our success. While clearly disappointing that he has chosen to move on, the core values that he helped establish only lead to us thanking him for the many tangible and intangible ways that he helped our program.”


Thank you for not going all Hinkie.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Pablo5 said:


> Laker fans are salty ass hell, lmao



I'm not. Just means there's a chance Westbrook comes to the Lakers.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Basel said:


> I'm not. Just means there's a chance Westbrook comes to the Lakers.


I think he will go East if anything. He knows the Lakers are still years away I dont see him going to LA.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749997649282142208
Fucking can't even spell traitor right. I'm dying.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Thunder front office statements:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for not going all Hinkie.


Complete class...very opposite of "the letter" when Lebron left.

When they traded Harden away it was the beginning of the end for OKC. Having a small market mindset really screwed them over in the end.

Kinda sad that OKC never won a championship when they should have been a dynasty.

Oh well.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

R-Star said:


> When Barnes was playing horribly offensively though they just plugged in Iggy. It's not like either guy was ever a drain on the team. They didn't need to be anything more than solid 4th options.
> 
> There's only one ball for Steph, Klay and Durant.
> 
> ...


To be fair, the "Death Lineup" already included Iggy at SF. So now instead of Barnes at 4, they have Kevin Durant. Pretty insane upgrade.

As far as your shot breakdown, I do appreciate your point, but you also have to consider the sheer volume of extra possessions the Warriors have. Their Pace last year was 2nd in the league versus San Antonio who was tied for 25th. So his share of the total number of shots taken compared to his teammates would likely be higher in San Antonio (ie he takes 35% of SA's total shots versus 31% in Golden State), but it may not be any higher from a total shots taken standpoint compared to Golden State (35% of total shots = 19 per game, 31% of total shots = 19 per game) because there are simply more shots to be taken.

All in all, he would have been a good fit in either spot but I think the pros for Golden State are very enticing.


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

GS is going to have some insane highlights next year. I'm really curious to see them play, just like the Heat's 1st Bron year


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749997649282142208
> Fucking can't even spell traitor right. I'm dying.


YOOOOO, im weak ass fuck lmao


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749997649282142208
> Fucking can't even spell traitor right. I'm dying.



Saw that earlier. Funny shit.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Basel said:


> Saw that earlier. Funny shit.


he should burn them tight ass shorts lol


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Not saying this doesn't make Golden State better or that they're not the favorites, but the same offensive issues they had in the playoffs have plagued Durant in his playoff career. When the defensive physicality turns up and the whistles for minimal contact go away, are they going to be able to score?


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> Not saying this doesn't make Golden State better or that they're not the favorites, but the same offensive issues they had in the playoffs have plagued Durant in his playoff career. When the defensive physicality turns up and the whistles for minimal contact go away, are they going to be able to score?


The problem for defenses though is eventually, if the ball is moved, someone is getting an open shot. This last year that happened to be Barnes a lot and he missed a lot of them. I think you have to presume Durant hits a lot more of them. And the fact you can't shade off Durant like you could Barnes any more means it could potentially, even if just slightly, reduce defensive pressure on Curry and Klay which is a scary proposition.

In addition even though Durant is susceptible to added defensive pressure he can still get a good shot off almost any time he wants due to his size, something Curry can't necessarily do.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Apparently Dallas has emerged as front-runners to get Bogut, in addition to the Barnes signing they already made.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

JNice said:


> The problem for defenses though is eventually, if the ball is moved, someone is getting an open shot. This last year that happened to be Barnes a lot and he missed a lot of them. I think you have to presume Durant hits a lot more of them. And the fact you can't shade off Durant like you could Barnes any more means it could potentially, even if just slightly, reduce defensive pressure on Curry and Klay which is a scary proposition.
> 
> In addition even though Durant is susceptible to added defensive pressure he can still get a good shot off almost any time he wants due to his size, something Curry can't necessarily do.


Absolutely. Adding one of the two or three best players in the league is obviously a game changer and an enormous upgrade in talent. But I agree with the assessment others have made that this makes them better in areas they're already great in without really helping their weaknesses.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

JNice said:


> The problem for defenses though is eventually, if the ball is moved, someone is getting an open shot. This last year that happened to be Barnes a lot and he missed a lot of them. I think you have to presume Durant hits a lot more of them. And the fact you can't shade off Durant like you could Barnes any more means it could potentially, even if just slightly, reduce defensive pressure on Curry and Klay which is a scary proposition.
> 
> In addition even though Durant is susceptible to added defensive pressure he can still get a good shot off almost any time he wants due to his size, something Curry can't necessarily do.


This assumes Durant is willing to be a catch-and-shoot guy though. Is that not grossly under-utilizing him?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

I would venture to say KD is a better defender than Barnes and his length bothers other players. He played very good defense in the playoffs - he may not make the Warriors crazy better on defense or on the boards, but he's definitely an upgrade over Barnes in every aspect, including where the Warriors have weaknesses.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This assumes Durant is willing to be a catch-and-shoot guy though. Is that not grossly under-utilizing him?


If he wasn't willing to be part of an ensemble crew and see his individual stats take a big hit, I have a hard time believing he would have made the decision he did today. I'm not buying the idea that Durant is going to Golden State thinking he's going to be the star running things.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Bogg said:


> If he wasn't willing to be part of an ensemble crew and see his individual stats take a big hit, I have a hard time believing he would have made the decision he did today. I'm not buying the idea that Durant is going to Golden State thinking he's going to be the star running things.



Agreed. I think KD is going there knowing that's still Steph's show up there. He's just helping to make it better.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bogg said:


> If he wasn't willing to be part of an ensemble crew and see his individual stats take a big hit, I have a hard time believing he would have made the decision he did today. I'm not buying the idea that Durant is going to Golden State thinking he's going to be the star running things.


I have a hard time believing he'd sacrifice being the best player on the cusp of championship to be a role-player on a team that's already won a championship. I guess if he is aware that he is the new upgraded Harrison Barnes (3 and D) and he is okay with that, then it should certainly work well. 

I guess I really just don't understand this move on his part. Maybe the pressure and challenge of being the best player on a contender was too much for him. Signing with the Warriors is certainly the easy way out, but comes with abbreviated credit.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I guess I really just don't understand this move on his part. Maybe the pressure and challenge of being the best player on a contender was too much for him. Signing with the Warriors is certainly the easy way out, but comes with abbreviated credit.


He wants rings. He's going to get a ring, and he'll figure the rest out later (hence the 1+1). It's no more complicated than that. You just don't normally see guys ring-chase like this until they're into their 30s.


----------



## AirJay (Aug 5, 2005)

Basel said:


> Agreed. I think KD is going there knowing that's still Steph's show up there. He's just helping to make it better.


I agree with those who say Durant's skills may be redundant, but when you have a chance to get one of the three best players in the league you do it, even if it means trading a guy who you love in Bogut.

I would argue that Durant will become the alpha dog on this team in terms of the offense. Curry wears down because he spends every minute he's on the floor running off screens and getting chipped etc. Now there can be whole possessions where Curry can just stay in the corner and chill as the world's greatest decoy. And unilke Lebron or Wade on that Heat team he is statistically the best corner three point shooter in the league.

It would have been fun to see KD on the Clippers or Celtics but oh well. I have no sympathy for OKC management. They embarked down this road by trading Harden for scraps. Even if one of those scraps turned into Steven Adams the timing of his development was off with the timeline for Durant/Westbrook and it put Durant in a position where he is now legitimately worried about winning a ring. If they had kept Harden their margin for error would have been higher from 2012-2016 in terms of winning close playoff games and overcoming injuries.

OKC could have trotted out an all time small ball lineup of Ibaka, Green, Durant, Harden, and Westbrook. Instead they have nothing to show for it.

Amazing the historical ramifications now of the Klay Thompson insane Game 6 and then Golden State blowing the 3-1 lead. Either of those doesn't happen do not Durant walking.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

OKC's biggest downfall was losing 2 prime championship years to injury. It wasn't management. It's funny all the people saying they should try to get value for Westbrook now, but don't understand that that's exactly what they get criticized for doing with Harden.


----------



## AirJay (Aug 5, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> OKC's biggest downfall was losing 2 prime championship years to injury. It wasn't management. It's funny all the people saying they should try to get value for Westbrook now, but don't understand that that's exactly what they get criticized for doing with Harden.


I just don't understand how you can defend them. If they pay the tax ONE year they keep Harden. You don't think Harden's presence helps them? 

Obviously this is results based analysis but we were all saying this when the trade happened. When you have a window for a title you seize it, you don't try to save money. Because windows close incredibly quickly for the flukiest reasons. OKC is a bigger what-if team than the Shaq-Penny Magic or the CWebb Kings at this point.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This assumes Durant is willing to be a catch-and-shoot guy though. Is that not grossly under-utilizing him?


I don't think so assuming Durant will be a willing part of their motion offense. As long as he's touching the ball and getting his fair share of shots in comparison to Steph and Klay, which I assume he would, then I think he'll be happy. And when Kerr pulls Steph and Klay out of the game they can give Durant a decent dose of ISOs while those guys rest.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

AirJay said:


> I just don't understand how you can defend them. If they pay the tax ONE year they keep Harden. You don't think Harden's presence helps them?
> 
> Obviously this is results based analysis but we were all saying this when the trade happened. When you have a window for a title you seize it, you don't try to save money. Because windows close incredibly quickly for the flukiest reasons. OKC is a bigger what-if team than the Shaq-Penny Magic or the CWebb Kings at this point.


The year after they traded Harden was their best season in (Thunder) franchise history. If they had Harden, they would have done better, but they still weren't winning a title without Westbrook who got hurt in the playoffs that year. After that, Harden leaves for nothing. 

So no, if they had kept Harden, they would have only jeopardized their championship hopes beyond 2013, while only marginally helping their championship hopes in 2013. Maybe they lose in the 3rd round instead of 2nd.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> OKC's biggest downfall was losing 2 prime championship years to injury. It wasn't management. It's funny all the people saying they should try to get value for Westbrook now, but don't understand that that's exactly what they get criticized for doing with Harden.


Not the same. Harden was entering restricted free agency - they had total control. I have zero doubt in my mind that, if they had the opportunity, OKC would match Durant's contract with Golden State even if he asked them not to. I feel the same way about the possibility of Westbrook signing elsewhere next summer. The push to get value for Westbrook now is because he's possibly (probably?) going to walk for nothing next summer, not because it would be too expensive for the Thunder to keep him.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> Absolutely. Adding one of the two or three best players in the league is obviously a game changer and an enormous upgrade in talent. But I agree with the assessment others have made that this makes them better in areas they're already great in without really helping their weaknesses.


I'm not entirely sure that argument is true though. When Durant replaces Barnes in their "death lineup" just physically he adds more size and length. Stats say Durant is also a better rebounder, shot blocker and arguably a better defender when he wants to be. I thought he was excellent defensively in the OKC v GS series, or at least most of it. 

And on offense, particularly during the playoffs, GS did throw up some real stinker quarters where teams managed to bog down their motion offense, stifle the splash brothers and hold them to very few points. Durant helps in that area because in those scenarios that can go to him to create offense. He's definitely better than Steph and Klay at creating his own offense mostly due to his size.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Quite frankly, I don't have the patience to have the Harden discussion again. Last thing I'll say is that it's funny for a team that everyone says will never win a title _because_ of isolation-heavy offense is criticized most for trading a player who isolates more than any player in the league. Harden was not some fill-in-the-weakness player for OKC. He tripled down on their greatest strengths with IMO too great of an overlap.

0 titles with or without Harden.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bogg said:


> He wants rings. He's going to get a ring, and he'll figure the rest out later (hence the 1+1). It's no more complicated than that. You just don't normally see guys ring-chase like this until they're into their 30s.


The beauty of the ring is the story and the legacy. He loses on both by joining another team's story as a supporting piece. He is contributing to Curry's legacy now more than helping his own. 

Maybe he doesn't care about legacy, but from everything I've gathered, he really does. The tweet posted earlier serves as an example.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

Unless Lakers are willing to move Winslow and Russell for him I dont see who OKC would trade Westbrook to


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Basel said:


> I'm not. Just means there's a chance Westbrook comes to the Lakers.


Agreed. The Lakers have been huge players with all the big name FA's recently.....


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The beauty of the ring is the story and the legacy. He loses on both by joining another team's story as a supporting piece. He is contributing to Curry's legacy now more than helping his own.
> 
> Maybe he doesn't care about legacy, but from everything I've gathered, he really does. The tweet posted earlier serves as an example.


I mean.......if you really think his plan is a hostile takeover of the Warriors, I suppose we'll just watch and see. I think his plans A-Z right now are to get a ring in any way possible, and then reassess.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The beauty of the ring is the story and the legacy. He loses on both by joining another team's story as a supporting piece. He is contributing to Curry's legacy now more than helping his own.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he doesn't care about legacy, but from everything I've gathered, he really does. The tweet posted earlier serves as an example.



We'll see. A lot of people were saying the same thing about LeBron when he went to Miami. But legacy is pretty cemented as one of the best ever, even if he hadn't won in Cleveland. 

Once you actually win the ring, the dynamic always changes. In a sense, if the same teams play next year and the Warriors win, KD will get a lot of credit since GS lost to the same Cavs team a year prior without him.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750036870696808448
:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bogg said:


> I mean.......if you really think his plan is a hostile takeover of the Warriors, I suppose we'll just watch and see. I think his plans A-Z right now are to get a ring in any way possible, and then reassess.


I don't think that's his plan, that's not at all what I said. He just took the easy way out for some reason, at the expense of his legacy, which is one thing I thought he cared about.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Basel said:


> We'll see. A lot of people were saying the same thing about LeBron when he went to Miami. But legacy is pretty cemented as one of the best ever, even if he hadn't won in Cleveland.
> 
> Once you actually win the ring, the dynamic always changes. In a sense, if the same teams play next year and the Warriors win, KD will get a lot of credit since GS lost to the same Cavs team a year prior without him.


True. I don't think KD goes to GS if GS beats the Cavs. GS losing in the Finals changes the perception somewhat with regard to all of this.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't think that's his plan, that's not at all what I said. He just took the easy way out for some reason, at the expense of his legacy, which is one thing I thought he cared about.


Well, I think it's pretty clear that you look at things differently than Durant does then. He's made it plainly obvious that he doesn't agree that winning a ring in this way would hurt his legacy. He took the easy way out in order to win rings, which he views as more important to his career than continuing to be the face of OKC.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Basel said:


> We'll see. A lot of people were saying the same thing about LeBron when he went to Miami. But legacy is pretty cemented as one of the best ever, even if he hadn't won in Cleveland.
> 
> Once you actually win the ring, the dynamic always changes. In a sense, if the same teams play next year and the Warriors win, KD will get a lot of credit since GS lost to the same Cavs team a year prior without him.


This is a lot difference from LeBron in Miami. Miami won 47 games and lost in the 1st round the year before. They had to create a new system. We're talking about Kevin Durant as a plug-and-play in an existing system that's already succeeded in a title. 

Dynamics do change, you're right about that. I guess we'll see. It's absolutely Durant's right to do as he pleases, and he owes OKC nothing. I appreciate his contributions greatly. I just think this is a poor move for his perception as a player, and that is my right as a sports fan to hold that opinion.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bogg said:


> Well, I think it's pretty clear that you look at things differently than Durant does then. He's made it plainly obvious that he doesn't agree that winning a ring in this way would hurt his legacy. He took the easy way out in order to win rings, which he views as more important to his career than continuing to be the face of OKC.


This is true. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't decide how his moves are perceived by the people who ultimately determine his legacy. Maybe it's more likely that he doesn't care about his individual legacy anymore.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Basel said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750036870696808448
> :laugh: :laugh:



That's awesome.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is a lot difference from LeBron in Miami. Miami won 47 games and lost in the 1st round the year before. They had to create a new system. We're talking about Kevin Durant as a plug-and-play in an existing system that's already succeeded in a title.
> 
> 
> 
> Dynamics do change, you're right about that. I guess we'll see. It's absolutely Durant's right to do as he pleases, and he owes OKC nothing. I appreciate his contributions greatly. I just think this is a poor move for his perception as a player, and that is my right as a sports fan to hold that opinion.



For what it's worth, I agree. I didn't want him to come to the Warriors and take the easy way out. Just like I didn't want LeBron to go to Miami. But I can't be mad at him like I used to be with LeBron. I get it. The objective is to win a ring and you have to give yourself the best opportunity to do that. It's ultimately all that matters and why you play the game. Can't fault him and I shouldn't have faulted LeBron then. Doesn't mean I agree with it but I get it. Means so much more when you win it and deal with the tough years in between (Dirk is the perfect example of this).


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

It sucks! 

Yes, I get the write your own narrative crap, but this man is leaving a team that was pretty good, for the very same team that kicked their behinds (thanks of course to them choking.) I mean where's the pride? 

Everyone wants to compare it to the Cavs, but Bron was toiling on that team for years with no help. There's also the hometown legacy, Cleveland's history of failure etc etc The man left, and still came back to win. He's being bandied around as one of the top 5 greats of all time. 

What's Durant's legacy going to be?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> What's Durant's legacy going to be?



To be determined.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

He's going to be remembered as the greatest beta in NBA history. And it will be hilarious if the Warriors don't win a title. Just as the 2011 Heat were hilarious, doubly so given the way the Mavericks came to life after Wade taunted them.

In any event, Klay Thompson isn't going to be happy seeing his career derailed in its prime. His agent's probably even unhappier. I give this until February before the stories start leaking about the dissension in the clubhouse.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

People also seem to be forgetting or discounting that he's also going from a smaller market to a larger market AND going from what was potentially a somewhat strained relationship with Westbrook to a team that by all accounts has incredible team chemistry. Maybe he just wants to go and have some fun?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

It just seems too easy. We all know they are going to steam roll through the competiton. Even this last finals, the Cavs pretty much needed a miracle to win. Anything can happen, but I'd be shocked if the Warriors dont win the next two championships.

On the other hand, if Lebron and the Cavs beat that team, I think he's the greatest player of all time.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

Looks like Bogut to Dallas along w/ Barnes...


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

HB said:


> On the other hand, if Lebron and the Cavs beat that team, I think he's the greatest player of all time.


Assuming relative health, etc... yeah, I would agree. Lebron's legacy this last Finals went from about to take a hit to growing tremendously.

Cavs won't really be able to add pieces. If they find themselves against GS again and win again Lebron's GOAT argument would be getting pretty strong.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

Sounds like GS may be looking to sign Dewayne Dedmon from Orlando. I was hoping he'd be returning but doesn't sound like it.

He would be a good pickup. His offensive skills are not good, he's somewhat foul prone and he certainly isn't the passer of a guy like Bogut but he can really block some shots and runs the court like a gazelle. He's also a massive lob target. Throw it up anywhere near the rim and the only guy who finishes better is probably DeAndre.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> He's going to be remembered as the greatest beta in NBA history. And it will be hilarious if the Warriors don't win a title. Just as the 2011 Heat were hilarious, doubly so given the way the Mavericks came to life after Wade taunted them.
> 
> In any event, Klay Thompson isn't going to be happy seeing his career derailed in its prime. His agent's probably even unhappier. I give this until February before the stories start leaking about the dissension in the clubhouse.



Why would Klay go to the meeting to try and lure him there is he's not happy about it?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Basel said:


> Why would Klay go to the meeting to try and lure him there is he's not happy about it?


Ideally everything will work out fine. It probably will. But it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a star player feel slighted in the NBA because he's not getting the amount of shots, or credit that they feel they're due.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Adam said:


> The whole NBA game is a competition within the economic game of the rules that are collectively bargained. A championship team, maxed out on cap space, suddenly gets a massive infusion of cash without having had to incorporate foresight or sacrifice is simply random and goes against the principles of balance. Neither side had to try very hard in this. Keep in mind, Miami planned out their 2010 cap space five years in advance and had to suffer multiple seasons of failure for the chance to execute their plan. This is just the sudden incorporation of a new economy into the old economy being used to the advantage of a ring-chasing, Stretch Armstrong looking bitch.


Well tbf, they are losing two starters and will probably have a weak bench but just saw this



> Next summer presents the challenge for GSW when Durant likely opts-out. With non-bird rights GSW will need to carve out $35m in room.


 - Bobby Marks


----------



## PauloCatarino2 (Jul 2, 2016)

Two more thoughts on the matter;

1- I find it funny to read people say Durant won't necessarily "fit" in Golden State. It just seems like wishfull thinking to me.
Playing alongside Curry and Klay, Durant will have more space to operate (not that he needs much) then ever before (cause teams could sag off Westbrook some - cause he can't shoot). Having to commit a defender to Curry AND another to Klay (or else it's an automatic 3) will leave Durant space to do his thing over anyone.

2- This "legacy" thing is also funny. Lebron buried that theory. Twice. You can defend "it's not really the same" or whatnot, bu the principle is there: a top player in the league joining a stacked team to chase rings.
This is NOT T-Mac joining Yao Ming in the Rockets.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

PauloCatarino2 said:


> 2- This "legacy" thing is also funny. Lebron buried that theory. Twice. You can defend "it's not really the same" or whatnot, bu the principle is there: a top player in the league joining a stacked team to chase rings.
> This is NOT T-Mac joining Yao Ming in the Rockets.


LeBron didn't join a stacked team, he created one. Very very different.

A lot of this GS bullshit is just dumb luck. They lucked out with Curry's contract and they lucked out with this cap explosion coinciding with Durant's free agency. That and Durant being a beta bitch.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino2 said:


> 2- This "legacy" thing is also funny. Lebron buried that theory. Twice. You can defend "it's not really the same" or whatnot, bu the principle is there: a top player in the league joining a stacked team to chase rings.
> This is NOT T-Mac joining Yao Ming in the Rockets.


The LeBron situation is different, but if KD can make GS "his" team then he definitely changes the narrative.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The LeBron situation is different, but if KD can make GS "his" team then he definitely changes the narrative.


That's not his personality though. Seems guy just genuinely wants to fit in. Draymond is still the alpha male of that group



> So what was the key to KD? One prominent Warriors organization member: "Jerry West. Everyone telling him he'd be on equal footing. No stars"


 - Marc Spears

Yeah this guy doesn't want to be 'the man'. At least not on the warriors. Maybe he will leave and go win somewhere else where he's the man. Just don't think he's going to replicate Lebron.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

You can't compare this with LeBron going to Miami. Not even remotely close to being the same.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Am I the only one who thinks if you have a championship caliber team where KD isn't the man on said team, it's probably the scariest team ever assembled?


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Jesus. Such peculiar move to me. OKC was so close last yr to beating em and made nice moves this summer to combat them and match up more. Thought KD would feel he has to finish what he had started after so many years with that group and Russ - at least another yr or two. Now, he's creating the narrative of just, "if you can't beat em, join em."


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

*Re: Durant to Warriors*



Basel said:


> Wow. He did it. Really thought he was going to give it a shot in OKC one more time. That team is going to be insane.


Just like the 1977 76ers. Not enough basketballs.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> As an OKC fan, this sucks, but I try to maintain perspective and realize that Durant gave his best years to this city. His best days are behind him if we're being honest, and I said that during this past season. He'll never have a season better than his MVP season.
> 
> As an NBA fan, this sucks even more. More than making Golden State better (I can see the argument both ways), it crippled OKC. Golden State has a better chance at making the finals by virtue of the fact that OKC can no longer compete with them. GS-Cleveland finals again is too likely for my taste. Only San Antonio can prevent it at this point.


After Westbrook bails, the team can always move back to Seattle.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HB said:


> That's not his personality though. Seems guy just genuinely wants to fit in. Draymond is still the alpha male of that group
> 
> - Marc Spears
> 
> Yeah this guy doesn't want to be 'the man'. At least not on the warriors. Maybe he will leave and go win somewhere else where he's the man. Just don't think he's going to replicate Lebron.


It's funny because I don't think KD is trying to be LeBron. Everyone else put that expectation on him.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Has anyone brought up the idea that maybe the reason KD did this is he talked to Westbrook, who told him he may be leaving after next season, anyway?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Ron said:


> After Westbrook bails, the team can always move back to Seattle.


Thanks for that. Some Seattle fans have been calling in today gloating and it's a beautiful reminder that as bad as the day is that Durant leaves, at least OKC still has a team. It could be far worse, we could be those Seattle fans.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750065126238191616


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Basel said:


> It's funny because I don't think KD is trying to be LeBron. Everyone else put that expectation on him.


Even reading that latter in the player's tribune, sounds a lot like the whole Bron leaving for college to get better thing. 

But you know what, KD has made his decision. He wants to win, maybe he will get a ring or two out of it. If he doesn't though, major shame.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm very disappointed because Thunder and Warriors series was the most entertaining series last year. I feel like we as fans shouldn't root for this type of signing because we lose out on the competition.

I still don't understand why Durant gave up on OKC. This isn't like the Lebron situation where his team continuously screw him over by giving him scrubs to play with. You don't leave to join the enemy when you're literally 5 minutes from advancing to the finals and likely winning the championship.

Moreover championships are not all about quanitity. Dirk might only have one chip but I have way more respect for him than I have for Durant from here on out.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750056936918351872


----------



## AirJay (Aug 5, 2005)

We can agree to disagree about the Harden situation.

The footnote in all of this again is the end of the OKC dynasty narrative. Unless of course Durant opts out and resigns with OKC along with Westbrook next offseason :legoat:

I also happen to think that once Durant joins Curry's team Durant will be the alpha dog as he is the overall superior more well-rounded player, as much as I love Curry. And I don't think Klay will care, he seems like a low-maintenance dude. It would be Draymond I would worry about.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

You cannot use this as an opportunity to bash OKC's management and connect it back to the Harden trade to take some sort of "I told you so" victory lap. Durant made his decision and that's fine, but you cannot say it's because the Thunder didn't put a team around him that could win a championship. They were a few plays away from beating the very team Durant is joining.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750001738250412032


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

hobojoe said:


> You cannot use this as an opportunity to bash OKC's management and connect it back to the Harden trade to take some sort of "I told you so" victory lap. Durant made his decision and that's fine, but you cannot say it's because the Thunder didn't put a team around him that could win a championship. They were a few plays away from beating the very team Durant is joining.


Agreed. OKC's management isn't perfect but nobody is perfect. They did a better job than the Timberwolves for KG, Orlando for Dwight, Cavs(first time and second time arguably) for Lebron.

Moreover the Harden trade wasn't just Harden for a bunch of role players, it was also to keep Ibaka. So basically it was Harden or Ibaka + Steven Adams + Andre Roberson. Some people might still rather have Harden but OKC got 3 starters out of the deal which is not bad at all.


----------



## Troy Whiteacre (Jun 29, 2016)

Loyalty is not a one way street. OKC owners showed no loyalty to a city with 40 years history of supporting a franchise when they bought the Sonics with the express purpose of moving them. Why should they expect any loyalty from their players?


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> As an OKC fan, this sucks, but I try to maintain perspective and realize that Durant gave his best years to this city. His best days are behind him if we're being honest, and I said that during this past season. He'll never have a season better than his MVP season.
> 
> As an NBA fan, this sucks even more. More than making Golden State better (I can see the argument both ways), it crippled OKC. Golden State has a better chance at making the finals by virtue of the fact that OKC can no longer compete with them. GS-Cleveland finals again is too likely for my taste. Only San Antonio can prevent it at this point.


This reminds me so much of Albert Pujols leaving STL for Anaheim.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750106750850732032


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

29380 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750106750850732032


Wow. That's an extremely good deal for G-State. Zaza is a reliable starting big man. Not good or anything, but he's solid. I'd say he's as good as Mozgov.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

He's good, especially if they manage his minutes. He was really good for Dallas last year for the first 50-60 games then just ran out of gas. Save him for the playoffs, he can throw his body around, rebound, pass. Not a rim protector like Bogut, but a nice big body to have on a dirt cheap deal.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I think the funniest thing out of all this is still other teams actually thought they had a chance to sign Durant. I guarantee you the decision was Warriors/Thunder right after OKC lost game 7. Durant wanted to wait and see what moves OKC made and apparently Ibaka for Oladipo+others was not to his liking.

LOL @ Miami and Boston for arranging a sit down with Durant. I mean what the fuck is Durant going to do in Miami? Play with Goran Dragic and Hassan Whiteside? I bet when Durant was meeting them internally he must be thinking "Do you guys understand how big of an idiot people will think I am if I actually sign with you guys?"


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Why would he waste his own time (not to mention theirs) giving them a meeting if he wasn't at least slightly interested and open to going there? If you get a seat at the table with a top 3 player, you take a swing at it. Not sure why you're laughing at them.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750036870696808448


----------



## AirJay (Aug 5, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> Agreed. OKC's management isn't perfect but nobody is perfect. They did a better job than the Timberwolves for KG, Orlando for Dwight, Cavs(first time and second time arguably) for Lebron.
> 
> Moreover the Harden trade wasn't just Harden for a bunch of role players, it was also to keep Ibaka. So basically it was Harden or Ibaka + Steven Adams + Andre Roberson. Some people might still rather have Harden but OKC got 3 starters out of the deal which is not bad at all.


They wasted a chance to keep a window wide open; the moves they made kept the window open, but it was never as open as it was right after those 2012 finals.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Nah man. This man simply didn't think they could overcome that hump. They have the talent, blaming management in this instance won't cut it. 

Maybe the rift with Westbrook is bigger than we thought. Either way, he took a risk. Whether it will pay off is anyone's guess.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

If Durant doesn't win a title with Golden State he will always be looked down as a loser.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I don't think we've ever seen a star outright sign with a rival that beat them in a hard fought 7 game series just a month or so prior. There's really no precedent for it. You have to wonder if KD was already in a GS uniform in his mind during that series. It's not like he played well.


----------



## AirJay (Aug 5, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't think we've ever seen a star outright sign with a rival that beat them in a hard fought 7 game series just a month or so prior. There's really no precedent for it. You have to wonder if KD was already in a GS uniform in his mind during that series. It's not like he played well.


This is ridiculous, questioning KD's desire to win that series is absurd. He didn't play well and pressed in Game 6, but he gave them a legit chance in Game 7 to steal a game on the road.

Smarter NBA people than me have referenced the Harden trade today. It's not the only reason this happened, but it definitely was a misstep that contributed to how we arrived at today. Zach Lowe summed it up nicely:

"Either way, the Durant-Westbrook Thunder take their place as the NBA's great dynasty that wasn't. They made one precocious Finals run and never returned, undone by injuries, bad luck, the rise of Golden State and one trade that reduced their margin for error. "


----------



## Goulet (Jun 26, 2011)

AirJay said:


> We can agree to disagree about the Harden situation.
> 
> The footnote in all of this again is the end of the OKC dynasty narrative. Unless of course Durant opts out and resigns with OKC along with Westbrook next offseason :legoat:
> 
> I also happen to think that once Durant joins Curry's team Durant will be the alpha dog as he is the overall superior more well-rounded player, as much as I love Curry. And I don't think Klay will care, he seems like a low-maintenance dude. It would be Draymond I would worry about.


Why would Draymond care? This is even better for HIM! He knows he has a new guy who he can pass to that will actually hit the open shots (not like Barnes)

What type of Alpha have you ever seen from Durant?

it's a complete pussy move as far as wanting to be your OWN superstar in the sense of proving something..but IMO thats just all of us being hard on him

Russ was more of an alpha than KD, but maybe KD didn't like that.... that Russ got 1st team ALL NBA and he didnt....

you almost beat a team 3-1...you can't close them out so you decide to join them which blatantly says you don't believe you can beat them, or at least your chances of winning are now better overrall so you just play the odds...ruin the franchise you helped build while clearly leaving unfinished business.....

IMO it says much more than just basketball.... he prob goes back to OKC for one more year if the GSW window would be open again, but it wont be so he had to screw OKC now..and it was bad timing for them..... it says he knew he would never be the superstar he wants to be in OKC as far as his overall brand... that he needs the bigger stage that is silicon valley, and in theory he's not wrong, to better that brand.

KD "could" know Steph is kinda sawft meaning he could potentially be the bigger star on the biggest team..and again...that helps your brand if you get the ring and become the bigger star out of 2 huge stars.

Klay is prob the biggest loser...the other 2 will get maxed and he will come to UFA sooner than draymond...cant see them being able to keep all 4 when Klay is up in a couple years.

KD simply made the most obvious decision in that he joins a team that should win 2 straight titles..and he betters his brand. he might hurt his image in doing so and screw some people he genuinely cared out, but at the end of the day was he gonna go back...lose again....and still not be as big of a star... just to prove a point?

$$$$$$ and rings seems like the "safer" choice everyday


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't think we've ever seen a star outright sign with a rival that beat them in a hard fought 7 game series just a month or so prior. There's really no precedent for it. *You have to wonder if KD was already in a GS uniform in his mind during that series.* It's not like he played well.


*From Marc Spears*



> “His decision is 90 percent made. It would take an amazing sales pitch to change it,” said one of Durant’s longtime friends.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Ah yes, the anonymous "friend" that all these guys were using as their source to run with their breaking news stories last week that made it sound like Durant back to OKC was a done deal. Fine piece of reporting from the usual suspects.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

AirJay said:


> This is ridiculous, questioning KD's desire to win that series is absurd. He didn't play well and pressed in Game 6, but he gave them a legit chance in Game 7 to steal a game on the road.
> 
> Smarter NBA people than me have referenced the Harden trade today. It's not the only reason this happened, but it definitely was a misstep that contributed to how we arrived at today. Zach Lowe summed it up nicely:
> 
> "Either way, the Durant-Westbrook Thunder take their place as the NBA's great dynasty that wasn't. They made one precocious Finals run and never returned, undone by injuries, bad luck, the rise of Golden State and one trade that reduced their margin for error. "


The Harden trade is a complete non sequitur at this point. They've been title contenders and a top 3 team every year since then. They had their best season in Thunder history the year after Harden was traded, winning 60 game with a +9.2 point differential. They probably would have won the title had Westbrook not been injured. That was the year I really felt confident they were taking it to the house. Durant was still pre-injury Durant and Westbrook had reached stardom. Ibaka still cared about defense more than three pointers. That was their apex. 

People want so bad for the Harden trade to matter, but it just didn't make much difference. The trade was inconsequential because Harden's contributions were minimized with OKC. Harden is a great player, but he didn't add as much to the Thunder as he does to a team that has 20 open shots and a ball he can play with all game. Harden is useless without the ball, and the Thunder didn't have a ball to give him. I said even before the Harden trade that OKC needed to choose between Harden and Westbrook. Maybe they made the wrong choice? That's the real debate in my mind, I'm still torn on it to this day. 

The OKC Thunder of this era will indeed go down as the best team that didn't win, but it's because they had 2 prime seasons taken away from them by injuries. OKC has had 4 full seasons since the Harden trade, and 2 of them were taken by injury. So what we're really talking about is the failure to win a title in 2 healthy seasons. And 1 of those healthy seasons had Ibaka injured for 2 games in the conference finals against eventual champion Spurs. As Golden State proved this season, it's hard to win a title. 73 wins and it's not a guarantee of anything. I feel that if the Thunder had 4 or 5 good runs at it, they would have won at least 1 maybe 2, but we'll never find out I suppose because Durant took the easy way out and joined a team that's already a champion.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

jayk009 said:


> If Durant doesn't win a title with Golden State he will always be looked down as a loser.


And if he does win, it's not clear how much he had to do with it. They didn't need him to win 1 and get to 2 straight finals. Like I said in the thread I made last week, high-risk low-reward move by KD. 

It gives him the best chance to win a title, but also gives him the best chance to taint his legacy/reputation.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HB said:


> *From Marc Spears*


I don't know how reliable the source is, but it's funny that we all thought the 90% was OKC.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Tier 4 star:
Al Horford makes 114 million

Tier 1 Star:
Durant makes 54 million


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

you understand how the Per Year portion works pseudo scientist, right? you understand that Durant wants it this way and it's better for him this way, right, pseudo scientist?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> And if he does win, it's not clear how much he had to do with it. They didn't need him to win 1 and get to 2 straight finals. Like I said in the thread I made last week, high-risk low-reward move by KD.
> 
> It gives him the best chance to win a title, *but also gives him the best chance to taint his legacy/reputation*.


I was thinking about this.

I'm an old school kind of thinker when it comes to the NBA. I agreed with past great ball players that, when Lebron James quitted the Cavs, said that it was unthinkable back in the day to go ring-chase to other teams. 

As an example, let's say Magic Johnson realized after the 1989 Finals that the Lakers wouldn't be able to win again with the aging KAJ and Coop and decided to join the Celtics (Bird), Chicago (Jordan) or even NY (Ewing). That would be considered, back in the day, inexcusable and a severe dent in a players' legacy.

Nowadays? I just don't think it's the same.

Barkley and Iverson went to other teams, butit was more a matter of being run out of town.
But what about KG to the Celtics? Shaq to the Cavs? T-Mac to Houston? Lebron to the Heat? Lebron to the Cavs? Malone and Payton to the Lakers?

Sure, those situations aren't exactly the same. But it's more a difference in degree than on principle, IMHO.

For every Kobe and Duncan there's a Lebron and a KG. It's more common nowadays to see players who were once the faces of the franchise join other teams. Rose to the Knicks. Aldridge to the Blazers. 

Who here thinks that Anthony Davis will be a Pelican for life? Towns a Wolve? Cousins a King?

Obviously, Durant going from a top team in the NBA to a two-time Finalist is a big thing, no doubt. But, again, i think it's more a question of degree than principle.

It's arguable that, nowadays, "legacy" is overrated. Heck, "Mr. Laker" himself, a dude with impecable credentials and poise lobbied for Durant to leave it's franchise...


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> I was thinking about this.
> 
> I'm an old school kind of thinker when it comes to the NBA. I agreed with past great ball players that, when Lebron James quitted the Cavs, said that it was unthinkable back in the day to go ring-chase to other teams.
> 
> ...


Not nearly the same thing.

1. Lebron/Durant/KG/Dwight left when they were ringless. Magic already had rings.

2. Lebron/Dwight/KG had no chance of winning a ring with their teams because their teams suck. Basically they left their teams because they had no rings and had no chance of winning a ring within say the next 2 years.

Now Durant's situation is completely different from any of the guys mentioned above. While Lebron and Dwight both made the finals, both of their teams got demolished in the finals and were not close to winning. I can honestly say that if the Spurs played that Cavs team in 100 series, unless there are injuries the Spurs would beat those Cavs 100/100 times. You can say the same thing about Orlando against LA although Orlando in my opinion would've never made the finals had KG been healthy. Moreover Orlando got worse the following year by letting their main playmaker Turkoglu go and replacing him with an aging Vince Carter.

In Durant's case his team has good odds of winning the finals next year. That's why his legacy should be tainted because of this move.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> Not nearly the same thing.
> 
> 1. Lebron/Durant/KG/Dwight left when they were ringless. Magic already had rings.


Lebron had rings in Miami.
And i was using Magic as a mere example. If you'd like, think 1989-1990 Michael Jordan.



> 2. Lebron/Dwight/KG had no chance of winning a ring with their teams because their teams suck. Basically they left their teams because they had no rings and had no chance of winning a ring within say the next 2 years.
> 
> Now Durant's situation is completely different from any of the guys mentioned above. While Lebron and Dwight both made the finals, both of their teams got demolished in the finals and were not close to winning. I can honestly say that if the Spurs played that Cavs team in 100 series, unless there are injuries the Spurs would beat those Cavs 100/100 times. You can say the same thing about Orlando against LA although Orlando in my opinion would've never made the finals had KG been healthy. Moreover Orlando got worse the following year by letting their main playmaker Turkoglu go and replacing him with an aging Vince Carter.
> 
> In Durant's case his team has good odds of winning the finals next year. That's why his legacy should be tainted because of this move.


Like i've said, i think it's a question of degree.
Sure, KG's Wolves were going nowhere. But Lebron's Cavs (and Heat) and Howard's Magic were NBA Finalists. No NBA Finals team "suck". Both teams were a good FA/sign away from being as strong (or close as) as the eventual champs.

But that's not my main point. 
What i'm saying is that in recent times great, storied, franchise players change teams much, much more frequently than before. And most of the time to ring-chase.

Karl Malone, after 18 seasons in Utah. 
Shaq to the Heat.
KG to the Celtics.
Lebron to the Heat. And to the Cavs.
Aldridge to the Spurs.
Chris Paul to the Clippers.
And now Durant to the Warriors.

Again, i'm not saying those situations are all the same exact one. I'm saying is that it seems to me it's becoming a fad of some sorts.
Thus the "legacy" argument losing a little weight.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> Lebron had rings in Miami.
> And i was using Magic as a mere example. If you'd like, think 1989-1990 Michael Jordan.
> 
> 
> ...


The "legacy" piece only comes up when people have no arguement in the first place. Who will be talking about lagecy 10 years from now if the Warriors go a on a dynasty run after landing KD? KD was a free agent and the best team in the West went after and landed him. 

Blame OKC for allowing KD to become a free agent or blame OKC for not having the pieces around him to be a Finals team year end and year out. Two MVP's type players and no one in return. Do you see the pattern? if they dont trade Westbrook they will lose him as well.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Lebron had rings in Miami.
> And i was using Magic as a mere example. If you'd like, think 1989-1990 Michael Jordan.


The main reason Lebron went back to Cleveland is because of his legacy though. As you can see now, after winning a championship in Cleveland he has cemented his place as one of the greatest of all time. It wasn't ring 1st, legacy 2nd in his decision to go back, it was the opposite.

As for Jordan I don't think he stayed in Chicago after the 89 season because he said to himself, "I must protect my legacy by staying and not demanding a trade." He just stayed in Chicago because the situation wasn't nearly as dire as say Lebron playing with Mo Williams and watching KG, Pierce, Ray Allen on the other end of the court.



> Sure, KG's Wolves were going nowhere. But Lebron's Cavs (and Heat) and Howard's Magic were NBA Finalists. No NBA Finals team "suck". Both teams were a good FA/sign away from being as strong (or close as) as the eventual champs.


They don't suck. I just said that they had no chance of winning a championship. Those Cavs would lose to those Spurs 100 out of 100 times. That's not contending. Moreover they got dominated by KG's Celtics the year before Lebron left. In Lebron's mind the Cavs aren't making it back to the finals at least until something happens to those Celtics.

As for Howard's Magic they got to the finals after KG broke his leg. When the leg healed they beat Orlando the following year. Again, did not look like Orlando is making it back to the finals any time soon with that current roster with Rashard Lewis eating up most of that cap space.



> Karl Malone, after 18 seasons in Utah.
> Shaq to the Heat.
> KG to the Celtics.
> Lebron to the Heat. And to the Cavs.
> ...


Aldridge has never been a top 5 player so he can care less about his legacy since he likely won't have one. I don't even understand your point about Chris Paul and the Clippers. Are you not old enough to remember that the Clippers before Paul got there was basically the laughing stock of the NBA for almost 3 decades? If anything Paul's legacy should improve by going to the Clippers. It's the freaking Clippers man. Donald Sterling remember him? It was not cool to be a Clipper before Paul got there.

Shaq wanted to stay in LA. Kobe basically went it's either him or me on the Lakers and the Lakers chose Kobe.

As for Karl Malone he left so that Utah can rebuild. Again, nobody in Utah hates Karl Malone for leaving the team. If Kobe was as classy he should've retired or left the Lakers 3 years ago. If he did that perhaps the Lakers would be back in the playoffs by now.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> The main reason Lebron went back to Cleveland is because of his legacy though. As you can see now, after winning a championship in Cleveland he has cemented his place as one of the greatest of all time. It wasn't ring 1st, legacy 2nd in his decision to go back, it was the opposite.
> 
> As for Jordan I don't think he stayed in Chicago after the 89 season because he said to himself, "I must protect my legacy by staying and not demanding a trade." He just stayed in Chicago because the situation wasn't nearly as dire as say Lebron playing with Mo Williams and watching KG, Pierce, Ray Allen on the other end of the court.
> 
> ...


This isn't really what i'm adressing, so i'll just skip it.



> Aldridge has never been a top 5 player so he can care less about his legacy since he likely won't have one. I don't even understand your point about Chris Paul and the Clippers. Are you not old enough to remember that the Clippers before Paul got there was basically the laughing stock of the NBA for almost 3 decades? If anything Paul's legacy should improve by going to the Clippers. It's the freaking Clippers man. Donald Sterling remember him? It was not cool to be a Clipper before Paul got there.
> 
> Shaq wanted to stay in LA. Kobe basically went it's either him or me on the Lakers and the Lakers chose Kobe.
> 
> As for Karl Malone he left so that Utah can rebuild. Again, nobody in Utah hates Karl Malone for leaving the team. If Kobe was as classy he should've retired or left the Lakers 3 years ago. If he did that perhaps the Lakers would be back in the playoffs by now.


What i was adressing was players "legacy" and that, IMHO, it means a little less nowadays.
Back in the day, a great player was supposed (fairly or not) to stay in the team and lead them to success. In the 80's (when i first started watching ball) the only exception i can remember is, like, Moses Malone.
It appears to me (may be wrong) it's happening much more frequently in recent times. KG, Lebron, Shaq (three of the best players in their era) chased rings by targeting specif teams to join. Even former great players like Karl Malone and Gary Payton did the same. Even a guy like Aldridge, who was the franchise player for the Blazers for severall years. 

It seems to me it's diluting (sp?) the concept of "legacy" a little. The concept of "Player X couldn't lead team Y to the Championship" means a little less nowadays.
Like you've said, who will care that Lebron James twice changed teams after losing? That KG could never do anything in Minny? 

Kevin Durant jumped ship. Russell Westbrook will do the same, most likely. Derrik Rose left the Bulls. I'd bet Anthony Davis will get the hell out sooner than later. Carmelo left Denver. McGrady left Orlando. So did Shaq. Etc., etc.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> I was thinking about this.
> 
> I'm an old school kind of thinker when it comes to the NBA. I agreed with past great ball players that, when Lebron James quitted the Cavs, said that it was unthinkable back in the day to go ring-chase to other teams.
> 
> ...


Does winning rings matter? If so, that's a contribution to legacy alone. If legacy doesn't matter, then neither does winning rings. But since winning rings does matter (to most fans), then legacy matters. 

Until fans get over their fascination of players winning championships to validate their worth, legacy will always matter, because titles are part of legacy. I'm probably one of the few who thinks a championship does absolutely nothing for an individual's worth, but I've come to realize that it's a losing battle to argue that. I've come to accept it as axiomatic that fans and media will always judge players by titles above all else. It's stupid, but it's reality. 

With all of the guys you mentioned, they made it "their" team by the time they won the title. If Durant does the same, all will be forgotten. It's going to be hard though since he is only 1 of 3 elite scorers and he doesn't do anything else well enough to stand out. I imagine all three of Curry, Klay and Durant drop to 23-24 points per game at most and stifle each others production. Reducing their own roles is going to hurt all of their individual legacies in my opinion, even if they win a bunch of titles, because we don't know how they handle pressure at maximum capacity (or maybe we do, all 4 blew a 3-1 lead in the most recent playoffs).


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Does winning rings matter? If so, that's a contribution to legacy alone. If legacy doesn't matter, then neither does winning rings. *But since winning rings does matter (to most fans), then legacy matters. *
> Until fans get over their fascination of players winning championships to validate their worth, legacy will always matter, because titles are part of legacy. I'm probably one of the few who thinks a championship does absolutely nothing for an individual's worth, but I've come to realize that it's a losing battle to argue that. I've come to accept it as axiomatic that fans and media will always judge players by titles above all else. It's stupid, but it's reality.
> 
> With all of the guys you mentioned, they made it "their" team by the time they won the title. If Durant does the same, all will be forgotten. It's going to be hard though since he is only 1 of 3 elite scorers and he doesn't do anything else well enough to stand out. I imagine all three of Curry, Klay and Durant drop to 23-24 points per game at most and stifle each others production. Reducing their own roles is going to hurt all of their individual legacies in my opinion, even if they win a bunch of titles, because we don't know how they handle pressure at maximum capacity (or maybe we do, all 4 blew a 3-1 lead in the most recent playoffs).


Which is why 10 years from now one one will talk about him going to GS if they win "rings". The legacy dispute is pointless while in a player prime. LeBron has proven that these same people that shitted on his legacy are the same people praising him for winning.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Does winning rings matter? If so, that's a contribution to legacy alone. If legacy doesn't matter, then neither does winning rings. But since winning rings does matter (to most fans), then legacy matters.
> 
> Until fans get over their fascination of players winning championships to validate their worth, legacy will always matter, because titles are part of legacy. I'm probably one of the few who thinks a championship does absolutely nothing for an individual's worth, but I've come to realize that it's a losing battle to argue that. I've come to accept it as axiomatic that fans and media will always judge players by titles above all else. It's stupid, but it's reality.


Just to say that:

Winning basketball games matter. If a player is one of the best he should be able to help his team win games. Unless the game is just a bunch of stats.

That's why i don't put Tiny's 72-73 season as one of the greatest ever. Or McGrady's 2002-2003.

Now, winning a championship is another thing. Or another step. There have been great players that have won plenty, but didn't get much (or any) hardware. Guys like Wilt. Jerry West. Karl Malone. Barkley. And their legacy still stands, wether one weights heavily on championships won when evaluating a player's career (or legacy).

individual brilliance doesn't win a championship. Team work does. And, for me, it's THE WAY a championship is won that matters the most.
I don't think Russell is the GOAT because he (and the Celtics) won a humongous amount of championships. But the end goal is to win. And his accomplishments WITH his level of play puts him up there.

Regarding Durant, let's say he wins 3 championships in Golden State playing 1B to Curry's 1A. Will it matter that much to younger fans?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Just to say that:
> 
> Winning basketball games matter. If a player is one of the best he should be able to help his team win games. Unless the game is just a bunch of stats.
> 
> ...


So winning games matters, and winning a championship is the next step, but individuals don't win championships teams do, and it's the way the championship is won, but the end goal is to win so it's championships combined with individual play. 

I don't feel like you have this thing figured out yet. You've thrown out a lot of statements about winning championships, but there isn't a consistent reasoning behind whether they matter or not in an individual's legacy.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So winning games matters, and winning a championship is the next step, but individuals don't win championships teams do,


Teams win games. Teams win championships.



> and it's the way the championship is won, but the end goal is to win so it's championships combined with individual play.


The way a championship is won matters to a player legacy. Ex: Shaq winning a championship in 2000 vs Shaq winning a championship in 2006.

For me, it's individual success with some consideration to colective play. 



> I don't feel like you have this thing figured out yet. You've thrown out a lot of statements about winning championships, but there isn't a consistent reasoning behind whether they matter or not in an individual's legacy.


I'll try to clarify:
1- A great player should be able to help his team win;
2- Winning championships is not mandatory to be considered a great player;
3- Winning championships enhance a player's legacy.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

seifer0406 said:


> Those Cavs would lose to those Spurs 100 out of 100 times.


The fuck? No they wouldn't. They beat the Spurs both times they met in the regular season and all of their finals games were closely contested (only one game was decided by double digits and it was 11). 100 out of 100 times...just stop.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So winning games matters, and winning a championship is the next step, but individuals don't win championships teams do, and it's the way the championship is won, but the end goal is to win so it's championships combined with individual play.
> 
> I don't feel like you have this thing figured out yet. You've thrown out a lot of statements about winning championships, but there isn't a consistent reasoning behind whether they matter or not in an individual's legacy.





PauloCatarino said:


> Teams win games. Teams win championships.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> I'll try to clarify:
> 1- A great player should be able to help his team win;
> 2- Winning championships is not mandatory to be considered a great player;
> 3- Winning championships enhance a player's legacy.


Thank you for the clarification. 

1- A great player is not a great player if he doesn't help his team win. I agree with this, except the only potential issue I see is that you might be using the result to conclude a player isn't great. Is it possible for a great player to play on a team that consistently misses the playoffs? Helping your team win doesn't mean you always win. If you look at the team result (losing) and use that to conclude that a player isn't great, I have a problem with that. 

2- Agreed. 

3- How so? Are all championships equal?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> 1- A great player is not a great player if he doesn't help his team win. I agree with this, except the only potential issue I see is that you might be using the result to conclude a player isn't great. Is it possible for a great player to play on a team that consistently misses the playoffs? Helping your team win doesn't mean you always win. If you look at the team result (losing) and use that to conclude that a player isn't great, I have a problem with that.


i would say it's not often to see a great player in a bottom-dweller team. A great player makes it easier for the team to play. Wether you are an efficient go-to guy on offense (opening up for the others), a distributor (making the offense run smoother) i can't really remember that many great players doing it in lottery teams.
Sure, Kobe Bryant, in his prime, missed the playoffs. But he was playing with absolute crap. Haven given him Pau and Bynum, and there he was in the Finals.
I would even say that if your team is enduring losing seasons in a row, maybe you are not that great a player.
It's the nature of colective sports: you need a team to win; but if you have a great player on board, you will find yourself winning more. 



> 2- Agreed.
> 
> 3- How so? Are all championships equal?


Off course not. I may be a Lakers homer, but i don't give that many weight on the three-peat Lakers winning against teams like the Sixers, Pacers and Nets. IMHO, none of those championships equal what Lebron (and the Cavs) accomplished against the Warriors (eventhough the East is a joke).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> i would say it's not often to see a great player in a bottom-dweller team. A great player makes it easier for the team to play. Wether you are an efficient go-to guy on offense (opening up for the others), a distributor (making the offense run smoother) i can't really remember that many great players doing it in lottery teams.
> Sure, Kobe Bryant, in his prime, missed the playoffs. But he was playing with absolute crap. Haven given him Pau and Bynum, and there he was in the Finals.
> I would even say that if your team is enduring losing seasons in a row, maybe you are not that great a player.
> It's the nature of colective sports: you need a team to win; but if you have a great player on board, you will find yourself winning more.
> ...


So I guess if context matters and not all titles are the same, we'd have to give some thought to what this current Warriors team winning would mean for the individual legacies of it's best players. It's not your standard situation where you have a hierarchy. From all accounts, it's going to be an equal spread in Oakland. Kind of like the 2004 Pistons in a way. It's a bit strange though since 2 of those players are top 5ish players and 2 others are top 15ish. You can't just treat every title GS wins like it's a Dirk homegrown title, but those guys are obviously better than the Pistons starters. It's weird situation.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So I guess if context matters and not all titles are the same, we'd have to give some thought to what this current Warriors team winning would mean for the individual legacies of it's best players. It's not your standard situation where you have a hierarchy. From all accounts, it's going to be an equal spread in Oakland. Kind of like the 2004 Pistons in a way. It's a bit strange though since 2 of those players are top 5ish players and 2 others are top 15ish. You can't just treat every title GS wins like it's a Dirk homegrown title, but those guys are obviously better than the Pistons starters. It's weird situation.


This is an interesting topic. All in all I've always had high praise for the 2004 Detroit Pistons championship win mostly because they were looked at as a team of misfits dominating what many at the time thought was the greatest team ever assembled. Now looking back on it, we realize that the Piston's win was more so due to their greatness than the Lakers weakness as a team and aging talent. It's made us think more highly of Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace, Chauncy Billups, etc. and in a way it has given them their own unique legacy not just as players but as a whole with that team. It's the same standard in my opinion with the 2011 Dallas Mavericks win over a supposedly more talented Miami Heat team. At the time we thought it was a major upset and chokejob by the Miami Heat (more specifically LeBron, and it can still be argued that he horribly under-performed in that series), but now looking back a lot of people believe it had more so to do with Dirk's greatness and how well built that Dallas team was. 

Hell what about the Warriors championship win from last season? One of the things I haven't seen get talked about much is how much does the Cavaliers winning this year devalue their winning the previous season? Warirors win against a injury ragged Cavaliers team and then have a record setting season, only to lose to a healthier Cavaliers team? What does that say about what they've accomplished so far?

I feel like as time goes on, certain teams are remembered for different reasons. Some teams that win a championship (like the 2006 Miami Heat) aren't highly thought of or remembered, but then teams like the 2004 Detroit Pistons (who were by no means perfect) are considered legendary teams because of the way they won and who they won against. So this doesn't just apply to players and their legacy, but it applies to teams as a whole.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Pablo5 said:


> The "legacy" piece only comes up when people have no arguement in the first place. Who will be talking about lagecy 10 years from now if the Warriors go a on a dynasty run after landing KD? KD was a free agent and the best team in the West went after and landed him.
> 
> Blame OKC for allowing KD to become a free agent or blame OKC for not having the pieces around him to be a Finals team year end and year out. Two MVP's type players and no one in return. Do you see the pattern? if they dont trade Westbrook they will lose him as well.


No one will put Durant in the top 5 conversation of all time, and maybe that's not what he wants. Great player sure, probably ends up with multiple rings. 

But I can't imagine him winning championships with this Warriors squad and getting the same type of respect the likes of Bron and the Celts did. We don't even know if he will end up being the feature player on this squad. Basically he moved to a team that didn't really need him. I am guessing in two or so years he's out.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

HB said:


> *No one will put Durant in the top 5 *conversation of all time, and maybe that's not what he wants. Great player sure, probably ends up with multiple rings.
> 
> But I can't imagine him winning championships with this Warriors squad and getting the same type of respect the likes of Bron and the Celts did. We don't even know if he will end up being the feature player on this squad. Basically he moved to a team that didn't really need him. I am guessing in two or so years he's out.


There's no active player who's gonna end Top-5


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> There's no active player who's gonna end Top-5


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So I guess if context matters and not all titles are the same, *we'd have to give some thought to what this current Warriors team winning would mean for the individual legacies of it's best players. *It's not your standard situation where you have a hierarchy. From all accounts, it's going to be an equal spread in Oakland. Kind of like the 2004 Pistons in a way. It's a bit strange though since 2 of those players are top 5ish players and 2 others are top 15ish. You can't just treat every title GS wins like it's a Dirk homegrown title, but those guys are obviously better than the Pistons starters. It's weird situation.


It will be interesting to see how Durant meshes whit Curry, Klay and Green, no doubt. 
But that remains to be seen. I'm not even sure Durant won't be the go-to scorer in that team....


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

HB said:


>


Nope.

AMENDMENT: when i said "no active player" i'm excluding Stephen Curry from the conversation. I'm unable to rank him.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Nope.
> 
> AMENDMENT: when i said "no active player" i'm excluding Stephen Curry from the conversation. I'm unable to rank him.


It's pretty obvious that LeBron will be considered by many a top 5 all time great when his career is over. He was already being considered that before the season started. Him winning the title for Cleveland in the fashion he did pretty much cemented his place in that regard. I don't think there's any way you can argue against it at this point.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Maybe teams need classifications: 

Superteam - 3 or more perennial all-stars and a huge drop-off after that (2012 Heat)
Equal spread team - above average players at every position (2004 Pistons)
Star-anchored - Style of play built around 1 superstar, may have another all-star and some really good roleplayers (2016 Cavs, 2011 Mavericks)


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

XxIrvingxX said:


> It's pretty obvious that LeBron will be considered by many a top 5 all time great when his career is over. He was already being considered that before the season started. Him winning the title for Cleveland in the fashion he did pretty much cemented his place in that regard. I don't think there's any way you can argue against it at this point.


Have you met Paulo? Smart guy, cool guy, but you'll never convince him about LeBron.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Have you met Paulo? Smart guy, cool guy,


Why, thank you! 



> but you'll never convince him about LeBron.


I concede it can be argued that Lebron is/can go high as #6 . But there's no way, shape or form he is over 1- Wilt; 2- Magic; 3- Jordan; 4- KAJ; 5- Russell.


----------



## AirJay (Aug 5, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Have you met Paulo? Smart guy, cool guy, but you'll never convince him about LeBron.


He also semi-bashed the Lakers three-peat from 2000-2002, which is weird because I HATED those Lakers team and appreciate that you cannot judge those teams based on who they played in the Finals, but rather all the good teams they laid waste to in the West (the Blazers, the Kings, the Spurs etc.)


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Why, thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> I concede it can be argued that Lebron is/can go high as #6 . But there's no way, shape or form he is over 1- Wilt; 2- Magic; 3- Jordan; 4- KAJ; 5- Russell.


I would argue against this, but seeing right now what you consider the top five best players of all time to be in what order, I realize that I would be wasting my time.


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

Dubs just picked up David West for like a mil. its getting beyond ridiculous at this point.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Why, thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> I concede it can be argued that Lebron is/can go high as #6 . But there's no way, shape or form he is over 1- Wilt; 2- Magic; 3- Jordan; 4- KAJ; 5- Russell.


Having Jordan at 3 and 3 Lakers on the top 5 should answer any questions anyone else had about your list.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Maybe teams need classifications:
> 
> Superteam - 3 or more perennial all-stars and a huge drop-off after that (2012 Heat)
> Equal spread team - above average players at every position (2004 Pistons)
> Star-anchored - Style of play built around 1 superstar, may have another all-star and some really good roleplayers (2016 Cavs, 2011 Mavericks)


This current warriors team wouldn't even fit in any of that


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

AirJay said:


> He also semi-bashed the Lakers three-peat from 2000-2002, which is weird because I HATED those Lakers team and appreciate that you cannot judge those teams based on who they played in the Finals, but rather all the good teams they laid waste to in the West (the Blazers, the Kings, the Spurs etc.)


I don't think he likes any other Laker teams or players in general other than the ones Magic was on.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

AirJay said:


> He also semi-bashed the Lakers three-peat from 2000-2002, which is weird because I HATED those Lakers team and appreciate that you cannot judge those teams based on who they played in the Finals, but rather all the good teams they laid waste to in the West (the Blazers, the Kings, the Spurs etc.)


Hey! I was talking about the Finals! It's obvious the REAL NBA Finals took place in the Western Conference playoffs.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

JT2 said:


> I don't think he likes any other Laker teams or players in general other than the ones Magic was on.


What? Are you serious?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Having Jordan at 3 and 3 Lakers on the top 5 should answer any questions anyone else had about your list.


Brian Adams, for the last time: Wilt Chamberlain's game PRIOR to him joining the Lakers is the major part of my loving him.

Come on, Jim Carrey, next thing you're claiming i have Jerry West over Dwyane Wade!


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

PauloCatarino said:


> What? Are you serious?


just speaking as a neutral observer here, I've never heard you praise any of those teams even when they were dominating. don't remember how you felt about PMOB Lakers


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

JT2 said:


> just speaking as a neutral observer here, I've never heard you praise any of those teams even when they were dominating. don't remember how you felt about PMOB Lakers


Well, i don't know what "PMOB Lakers" mean, but off course i loved the three-preat Lakers. With a passion! One of my favourite Lakers moments ever was Rick Fox screaming to the Spurs bench "You're gonna fold! Just like you did last year!" And, off course, watching Kobe Bryant growing from a brash teenager to the most feared player since Wilt Chamberlain.

I just think the Lakers faces lesser competition in the Finals...


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

PMOB=Payton Malone O'Neal Bryant

the Payton Lakers for short


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

JT2 said:


> PMOB=Payton Malone O'Neal Bryant
> 
> the Payton Lakers for short


Well, i didn't love that team.

One, i hated to see the Mailman leaving the Jazz, even for the team i root for.
Second, Payton was a horrible fit.
Thirdly, Kobe stunk up the place in the Finals.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> The fuck? No they wouldn't. They beat the Spurs both times they met in the regular season and all of their finals games were closely contested (only one game was decided by double digits and it was 11). 100 out of 100 times...just stop.


And they got swept in the finals.

Larry Hughes, Eric Snow, Donyell Marshall, Drew Gooden, Z, Varejao. Please, tell me how this team is competitive with those Spurs. It was not a close series.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Brian Adams, for the last time: Wilt Chamberlain's game PRIOR to him joining the Lakers is the major part of my loving him.
> 
> Come on, Jim Carrey, next thing you're claiming i have Jerry West over Dwyane Wade!


Brian Adams is the Kobe Bryant of the music world. Thank you.

Jim Carrey is American as far as I'm concerned. You guys can keep him.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Basel said:


> Why would Klay go to the meeting to try and lure him there is he's not happy about it?


I think people forget that the 2008 Celtics essentially performed this experiment already. They teamed up two primary scorers and one secondary scorer, all three of which were 20+ p/g scorers going in to that season. In 2008 _none_ of them averaged 20 p/g. But it was a lot easier for Pierce, Allen, and Garnett to sacrifice their offense given their ages and the fact that their places in NBA history were already secure.

More tellingly the 2010 Celtics essentially _were_ the 2017 Warriors, with Rondo (like Draymont Green) becoming a high usage player. While the Celtics did a good job of hiding the dissension from the 2010-2012 era, that last year the stories of the bickering due to the one basketball problem began making their way in to the wild. And that was still with no one averaging 20 p/g. 

So how do people think this is going to work for the Warriors? Are they going to magically transport themselves into the 80s and start playing with 106-108 possessions per game? Of their big four at least one doesn't have his place in NBA history secure and when this shakes out on the floor and he's averaging 12-14 p/g, he ain't going to be happy.


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

its only gonna be for 1 or 2 years though, if anything it'll be an interesting experiment for the Warriors. if KD doesn't like it he'll just go elsewhere, probably Boston


----------



## jericho1 (Jun 29, 2016)

I'm so disappointed in Durant for this wuss move. This is like Karl Malone if signed on with the Bulls after the 95-96 season. Make your own history, dude.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

seifer0406 said:


> *And they got swept in the finals.*
> 
> Larry Hughes, Eric Snow, Donyell Marshall, Drew Gooden, Z, Varejao. Please, tell me how this team is competitive with those Spurs. It was not a close series.


And all of the games apart from one where very close. And in the game of basketball, beating a team four straight times alone is a very difficult accomplishment. Saying they would lose 100 out of 100 times is both wrong and stupid.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I just cannot envision a world where KD doesn't average 25 a game. I can see Steph's average going down from 30 to around 21 or 22 a game. I can see Klay averaging 18 or 19 instead of 22. Draymond might go down from the 14 or 15 a game range down to the 10-to-12 range. That's 4 guys averaging 65-to-72 points a game. 

For reference, the 1985 Lakers' top 4 guys averaged 74 a game combined.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> And all of the games apart from one where very close. And in the game of basketball, beating a team four straight times alone is a very difficult accomplishment. Saying they would lose 100 out of 100 times is both wrong and stupid.


Learn to read dumbass



> Now Durant's situation is completely different from any of the guys mentioned above. While Lebron and Dwight both made the finals, both of their teams got demolished in the finals and were not close to winning. *I can honestly say that if the Spurs played that Cavs team in 100 series, unless there are injuries the Spurs would beat those Cavs 100/100 times.* .


smh. I think you are the only one here that thought I meant the Spurs would beat the Cavs 100 straight times. No, I don't think they can beat a euro league team 100 straight times.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

seifer0406 said:


> Learn to read dumbass
> 
> 
> 
> smh. I think you are the only one here that thought I meant the Spurs would beat the Cavs 100 straight times. No, I don't think they can beat a euro league team 100 straight times.


100/100 times means all 100 times they would win, as in 100 straight teams. My god you are a fucking idiot.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:|


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Irwin gonna Irwin


----------



## AirJay (Aug 5, 2005)

RollWithEm said:


> I just cannot envision a world where KD doesn't average 25 a game. I can see Steph's average going down from 30 to around 21 or 22 a game. I can see Klay averaging 18 or 19 instead of 22. Draymond might go down from the 14 or 15 a game range down to the 10-to-12 range. That's 4 guys averaging 65-to-72 points a game.
> 
> For reference, the 1985 Lakers' top 4 guys averaged 74 a game combined.


I don't think any of them will have a problem with that. Curry and Thompson seem low ego, and Draymond Green will left open enough to make plays and shoot that his numbers will be better than most think. Green may average 11-12 points but double digit rebounds and 6-7 assists.


----------



## JT2 (Jul 4, 2016)

Barkley says Durant might be cheating:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...-thinks-stars-kevin-durant-cheating-get-title


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> 100/100 times means all 100 times they would win, as in 100 straight teams. My god you are a fucking idiot.


If the Spurs beat the Cavs 100 straight games, that would still only be 25 series, not 100 series.

Somebody should go to your school and mollywhoop your math and English teacher.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> If the Spurs beat the Cavs 100 straight games, that would still only be 25 series, not 100 series.
> 
> Somebody should go to your school and mollywhoop your math and English teacher.


You both look like dipshits right now. Find something else to talk about.


----------



## Troy Whiteacre (Jun 29, 2016)

seifer0406 said:


> If the Spurs beat the Cavs 100 straight games, that would still only be 25 series, not 100 series.
> 
> Somebody should go to your school and mollywhoop your math and English teacher.


 @R-Star @XxIrvingxX @seifer0406 If the Cavs beat the Spurs in a forest in 2007 but nobody hears it did it really happen?


----------



## AirJay (Aug 5, 2005)

JT2 said:


> Barkley says Durant might be cheating:
> 
> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...-thinks-stars-kevin-durant-cheating-get-title


This is just silly.

Barkley pushed his way out of Phoenix because he wanted to play with Olajuwon and Drexler.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

R-Star said:


> You both look like dipshits right now. Find something else to talk about.


Okay, new topic:

Why is R-Star back and what can we do to get rid of him this time?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Okay, new topic:
> 
> Why is R-Star back and what can we do to get rid of him this time?


If you become a quality poster and not someone we assume is either between the ages of 12-15........or mentally touched, I'll leave. 


Seeing as there's like 14 people who still post around here since I left(which I predicted), it shouldn't be too hard for you to move up the ranks if you try hard.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Troy Whiteacre said:


> @R-Star @XxIrvingxX @seifer0406 If the Cavs beat the Spurs in a forest in 2007 but nobody hears it did it really happen?


Depends. Were David Stern and Joey Crawford there? That would change my opinion.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

R-Star said:


> If you become a quality poster and not someone we assume is either between the ages of 12-15........or mentally touched, I'll leave.
> 
> 
> Seeing as there's like 14 people who still post around here since I left(which I predicted), it shouldn't be too hard for you to move up the ranks if you try hard.


If making posts as meaningful as yours is the requirement, then it shouldn't be difficult. I'll start by making claims that Roy Hibbert is the next Ralph Sampson.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> If making posts as meaningful as yours is the requirement, then it shouldn't be difficult. I'll start by making claims that Roy Hibbert is the next Ralph Sampson.


What I like most about you is from time to time you pretend you know who players like Ralph Sampson are. It's especially funny since we all know without wikipedia you don't even know who Raef Lafrentz is.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

R-Star said:


> What I like most about you is from time to time you pretend you know who players like Ralph Sampson are. It's especially funny since we all know without wikipedia you don't even know who Raef Lafrentz is.



Man, that's a name I haven't heard in a while.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It's cool to have @R-Star back. New users are cool but this site is really just a time capsule of of it's prime and so any old-timers from that era who still post are okay by me.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

With Barbosa signing in Phoenix, the list of vets looking to come to Oakland for the minimum just keeps getting smaller.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

RollWithEm said:


> With Barbosa signing in Phoenix, the list of vets looking to come to Oakland for the minimum just keeps getting smaller.


They dont need much. 20-25 points off the bench would be GREAT for them.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Now that they officially brought back James Michael McAdoo and signed rookie Damian Jones to a contract, I guess that's the basis of the PF/C positions for this team. It's looking like....

PF Draymond/DWest/Devon Looney
C Zaza/McAdoo/Damian Jones

Then the guard positions are somewhat solidified with....

PG Steph/Livingston
SG Klay/Ian Clark/Patrick McCaw

Really the last 2 positions to be filled on the 15-man roster would be their 3rd PG and their 3rd SF....

SF Durant/Iggy

That team certainly isn't as deep as last year. A key injury to any of the big 4 in the playoffs could actually hurt this team unless they manage to get another vet to agree to a min contract.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Barbosa has gone back to the Suns. I think they are going to keep Kiefer Sykes. He's played decently well for their summer league squad.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

R-Star said:


> What I like most about you is from time to time you pretend you know who players like Ralph Sampson are. It's especially funny since we all know without wikipedia you don't even know who Raef Lafrentz is.


I don't need wikipedia to know who one half of the real twin towers is (suck it Duncan and Robinson). By all means though, what ever makes you feel more like Jamel (a much better poster).


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I don't need wikipedia to know who one half of the real twin towers is (suck it Duncan and Robinson). By all means though, what ever makes you feel more like Jamel (a much better poster).


How are you learning about the game these days now that your all-knowing neighbor passed away?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/753752065550069760


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

RollWithEm said:


> Now that they officially brought back James Michael McAdoo and signed rookie Damian Jones to a contract, I guess that's the basis of the PF/C positions for this team. It's looking like....
> 
> PF Draymond/DWest/Devon Looney
> C Zaza/McAdoo/Damian Jones
> ...


I would like to see a deeper roster that GS.


----------

