I did not mention Me, was about the competitive nature of some people, so be quiet at the time. It could very well be like Me or not be like Me, but that was not the point, appreciate it if you stay on topic rather than try to be smart and just end up coming off as ignorant at the time.
Kobe, whom many claim is the most competitive player of this generation, was screaming at management and threatened to leave multiple times because he wanted better teammates. Everyone wants better teammates to make it 'easier' as you put it. Jordan was not telling Jerry Krause 'please get worse players so I can have a bigger challenge.' This is *****ing basketball, get out of here with this 'righteous' b.s. The problem is you have no problem with teams trying to get better, just don't get too much better. BTW, I really wish this didn't happen, but the idea that if any player just tried hard enough they could win a championship too is stupid. Even Jordan needed the right situation around him.
The problem there is that at the end of the day those players did not leave their team, and it ended being invaluable to their legacy as players. It is not supposed to be a perfect ride, and conflict with an organization can turn out to be good for a player or coach. I Am not even criticizing the Warriors for wanting to get better, or Durant for making his own decision, he is his own man and this decision may might pay off for him as a person. I just think of it differently, as some competitive people may think, they may want to be able to prove themselves by beating the best out there, not joining them on a team.
How is it a "problem" to want teams to get better but not "too much better?" I want teams to get better in order to witness better basketball. I rather watch Russ and KD vs Curry and Klay than Jordan Clarkson and D'angelo Russell vs Ish Smith and Evan Turner. I don't want teams to be so stacked as to lessen the competition due to sheer dominance of one or two teams. This consolidation of talent cannot be good for the NBA long term, as it actually decreases overall competition. What happened now is that you literally just took away one true contender from the field without actually adding any competitiveness to the league somewhere else. You went from GSW, SAS, CLE, OKC to GW, SAS, CLE.
It's not a problem. My point is you could argue EVERY player wants to take the 'easy way out' as he frames it. That's the 'problem'.
How could you argue that when LeBron joined the Cavaliers when he might have been able to just join a super team? I Am possibly sure there were many other instances in sports where an athlete could have taken the possible easy way out to join a team with better players, but ended up staying with his or her team. I Am not speaking for every person, some people have different perspectives about competitiveness in basketball.
He has the right to go to the GSW We have to the right to call him a soft, weak-willed p***y We know why OKC choked. . . .. cause he is weak willed Rocket River
Players didn't leave in the 80's and 90's because they couldn't - not out of some moral high ground or commitment to their teams. Free agency didn't even exist in most of the 80's, and the cap rules made it far easier for teams to keep their players in the 90's.
Absolute revisionist history. LeBron rehabilitated his image after they won their first championship (second Miami year), the Cleveland win just elevated/cemented his status as an undisputed great.
So . .. since he is a front running whiney b*tch it's ok for others to be . . .we got it Rocket River
I have a question. If you were given the chance to change jobs for a competitor in an ultra competitve industry, would you consider it? Lets look even further at it. Lets say one office is really uptight and the other is fairly laid back which is more of a match, would that play into the decision? If you were a waiter and a better restaurant offered you a job, would you leave? Just curios, personally speaking i find no faults in him trying put himself in the best possible situation to win. Thats the name of the game. P.s. you all might "say" his rings (if they win)are tainted or have an astrik next to it, but in the offical history books no astrik will be found. If dwight stayed, and then durrant chose to form a "superteam" here would you view him the same for leaving okc?
there just isn't a good analog to workers in the corporate world because there is no connection to "fan perception" in the corporate world for normal workers. one big difference is that there is no emotional attachment to the corporations the way there are to teams. no one cares about how well you help your company perform in the most recent quarter. nor is there a connection to the corporation's success as a worker the way there is to a team as an athlete. an athlete is essentially trying to achieve team success to best express how good he is as an individual. a person at facebook isn't trying to make facebook the best company in the world. they are just trying to get the best combination of money, career path, and commute that they can. no one views them as supporting facebook's overall goals beyond simply doing their job and getting to keep their job. no one would think "how could you leave facebook for google just as they were about to surpass google for largest market cap in the world?" also, a random worker is like an nba role player. no one would care if jerryd bayless went to the warriors with an equal offer from another team because he just wanted to win. because jerryd bayless isn't doing this for credit or for legacy. a truer analog to durant would be the founder of a great company. if mark zuckerberg woke up tomorrow and said he was joining the C-suite at google, people would think it was crazy and his position as a business visionary would immediately be downgraded.
i agree. it's disingenuous to hear old players talk about/be propped up by redeeming qualities they had for not making decisions they basically had no opportunity to make.
I like this guy's points. Mostly that circumstance dictates movement or lack thereof, so it's easy to think of the winners as loyal. This guy only touched on the players, but I think the front office / ownership plays a part in that circumstance as well. They create a culture that entices you to stay when the going gets tough. Separately, if we go forward 20 years and Durant has just 1 ring next year with GS...I still think he was smarter than Karl Malone, who never won. Not to say Malone had this amazing opportunity given free agency back then, but I'd rather be Durant with 1 (hypothetical) title than Malone with 0.
So if zuckerburg joined C-suite and then company came to be known as the best, wouls he still be downgraded. I just find it funny that people are all for putting themselves in the best possible scenario for them, but when an athlete does it all of a sudden hes a b****, p***y, weak minded douche bsg that doesnt deserve to win. Thats all, and i would imagine 90% of the people here would make a similar decision if they were actaully in the situation. Damned if he does, damned if he doesnt. I mean we only live in america where we have the freedom of choice. 20-30 years from now, no ones gonna complain about him going to golden state. They are just gonna say oh he won "insert ring total here"