You seem to be getting rather defensive about anything KD related. I think most people out there are NOT disputing whether KD is a champion or all-world player. He is a champion, Finals MVP, and probably the best player on the planet right now. Nobody is disputing that. Also, in a league where players are forming super teams, he has every right to go wherever he pleases in order to put himself in a position to succeed. He didn't get that treatment in OKC, where Westbrook apparently runs the team. It's HOW he did it that is in question. He was a top 2 player in the league and he felt the need to join an existing championship-level team with 3 All-Stars in order to win his ring? In other words, the Warriors had enough talent to win a ring this year without him. He was just the cherry on top. Sure, he's their best player at the expense of Curry/Thompson getting touches and he made that team THAT much more dominant. But seriously, if you're a top 2 player in the league, do you really need to join an existing championship squad just to win a ring? Couldn't he have joined another team that needed his service a little more to push them to the next level - Rockets, Wizards, etc?
I am not defensive, I just do not see it the way many people does. I like the way GS plays as well as how Spurs play, I enjoy great team basketball.
The result might be the same to you (assuming you detested previous superteams, like the Big Three Celtics, 1996-99 Bulls, Showtime Lakers, etc), but that's clearly not true widely, as those teams I mentioned didn't generate the overall opprobrium that Durant and the Warriors did (or that the Heatles did at the time). People who dislike all superteams because they want to see more competitiveness I can fully understand. People who only dislike the Heatles and Durant Warriors, but talk about league competitiveness, aren't being truthful, IMO.
There was social media when LeBron James made The Decision. A few short years later (well, okay, 7), James is a hero because people have moved on to Durant as the villain. 10 years from now, people will have found new villains. "Social media" doesn't have a long attention span.
Agreed with your points. A basketball team without fans means no money spent on team merch. A team without revenue means no salary for the players. And no salary for the players means no motivation to play, and so on and so forth. I get it. But the problem is, there is this disconnect between the player and the fan. A physician's ultimate goal is to treat his patients as best he can; there's really no secondary, ulterior goal. A basketball player's ultimate goal (in the NBA, at least) is to win a ring, not to appeal to the fans. This isn't to say KD should alienate his fans for the purposes of winning a ring, but given the two choices, any NBA player would choose the ring. As a fan of the NBA secondary to the Rockets, I can definitely see the frustration of the GS juggernaut, and the ripple effect for years to come. Basically, if you're not part of a superteam or a super system (Spurs), you're probably not going to beat GS or CLE, for at least the next 3-4 years. But I think there are enough casual fans, both domestic and internationally, to keep the NBA afloat. I agree that ratings will drop, but I don't think it will be a drastic one. And after 3-4 years of possible ratings decreases, the NBA might normalize again; LeBron gets old and/or retires. GS eventually breaks up or another young superstar squad emerges. A fringe finals team eventually breaks through. So ratings might return to baseline, circa 2015. My analogy for the medical student could be expanded on, but first, I don't believe I meant or inferred that KD going to a top-ranked medical school would hurt his professional existence. I meant that, a stellar student in their undergraduate years knows what they're able to bring to the table, to med school and possibly beyond, as far as their own individual capabilities can take them. So the student would rather matriculate at a great medical school (GSW) versus a good medical school (OKC). I've heard that it's near impossible to transfer from med school to med school without a very compelling reason, but I'll still use that comparison; KD is basically transferring from a good school to a great one; one that, as you said, would amplify his professional existence. It's as if OKC gave KD the surgical tools, but GSW taught KD how to use them. Going to the best possible residency and doing a subsequent fellowship is what a "stellar student" like KD did; he knows his credentials (Step 1 score, specialty letters of rec, clinical experience) are solid, so he decides to try and match for dermatology (GSW) vs something like family or internal medicine (OKC). It's not to say that obtaining a residency in family or internal med / staying in OKC makes you any less of a physician / basketball player, but he's wanting to go to a situation that offers him the best lifestyle / legacy. Obviously, the relationship between a player and his many fans is vastly less intimate than the relationship between a physician and his many patients, but that's another story. Hopefully, I've explained that particular POV the best I can; I have an interest in medicine and the path to become a physician, but I'm definitely not as attuned to the field of medicine as you are! I'm fairly certain you ARE actually an MD in training (iirc), so if I misspoke about anything, don't hesitate to let me know. I'm prepared to be blasted/flamed/roasted. All good points, though. You don't see too much civility on the internet, these days, lol.
OK, but now we're talking ourselves down a completely different road. Point is, it's not the same as a player making a free-agency decision. Apples and oranges. No, but this implies that there isn't some sort of generally preferred standard of sportsmanship and competition. I don't believe "players should do whatever makes them feel good" to the detriment of their friends/team/league. This is too touchy feely millenial for me. The point is, people can dislike what a player does for a lot of reasons, and be justified. Free agency has nothing to do with a players' "role", the same way you and I could switch careers or industries just because we feel like it. But our friends and family don't have to like the choices we made. No one owes Kevin Durant any admiration. This is entertainment. A superstar should be able to deal with the results of an unpopular decision. I believe you're trying to prove that people can't (or shouldn't?) dislike what Durant did because he was within his rights to do so. Maybe you understand why that's not very compelling. I see no compelling reason why I must appreciate a superstar signing with the best team in the NBA.
People pursuing life paths that make their lives better isn't a new age "Millennial" thing (side note: I feel like these days, whenever someone doesn't like something, they just call it "Millennial" and that's supposed to prove how awful it is). It's pretty much what humans have done throughout history. There isn't a "generally preferred standard" of competition that spans eras because rules change. We have no idea what Michael Jordan would have done or what Oscar Robertson would have done if they had played in an era of as much player control over free agency as players do now. Saying, "Michael Jordan/Larry Bird/Whichever Paragon of Virtue would never have done this!" is a pretty meaningless statement when they couldn't have done that. I agree that that's not compelling at all. That's also not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to point out the real reason people don't like what Durant and James did, rather than the reason people pretend it is. I'm in no way trying to "prove you can't/shouldn't" like or dislike anything you want. I think people should like or dislike whatever they want--they should just be honest about what it is they don't like: players taking matters into their own hands.
your comparison is not a good one, First of all, i am taught by my great parents and so many great people who have lived glorious lives that i do my job because i love them and i want to be the best at it, (in fact basketball is my favorite thing to do outside my normal job) if i am a professional player, i wouldn't cared about rings instead i would want to be the best, rings are just a result of that, so is higher pay. Second, the reason i love basketball is that competing against other people is fun, the competition and winning is what brings joy to me, so does any other sports, that's why people love sports. You don't lose to somebody and go join them, it's not the same thing as switching to a better company, because that company didn't beat you in WCF and took the chance of being a champion from you, besides, KD got enough recognition and promotions in OKC, your alleged Company A. Third, great players without rings are no less greater that players with rings, rings is not the only measurement of greatness, it's how you performed across your career, what is the level of your competition that ultimately determines the greatness of a player, that's why MJ will always be the first on my list, ahead of people like bill russel who have more rings than him
Already know this is yet another ignorant bigot white boy. Do you broken record demons ever stop? Its 2017 and you b@$tards been like this since the 1600's smdh. Ridiculous
I'm happy that you love your job, but there are exactly 2 goals for a player in the NBA: to earn money, and to get rings. Durant has done the former, and as of this past week, he has done the latter. I mention the 'switching to a better company' because what Durant did allowed him to have a better chance at accomplishing the goal of getting a ring. Unless Kevin Durant flips a switch and has monster statlines throughout the rest of his career AND wins multiple titles, he'll never be considered GOAT level status over LeBron and MJ. So if that goal is unreachable, then strive to earn as much money as you can, and as many rings as you can. KD has performed well across his career, thus far. His level of competition was great while he was in OKC. And it's still great, even as he is in Oakland. Spurs aren't pushovers. Cavs aren't pushovers. Unfortunately, the level of GS is just that much higher than the rest of the teams in the NBA. But let's not pretend like it's the Warriors competing against 29 D-League teams for the title. How exactly are you measuring players? Rings are definitely a factor, in determining how "good" a player is/was. Obviously, people are going to bring up players like Darko who won a ring with the Pistons, while Barkley, Stockton and Malone don't have rings to show for their careers, so, sure. Rings aren't the only factor; but they ARE a factor. Are you actually going to say that Durant with a ring < Durant without a ring, despite receiving that ring with the Warriors? If a player is already "great," then having X rings only serves to bolster their legacy. I think you'd be in the minority, if you were a professional player and all you cared about was being the best, vs getting rings. Basketball is a team game, after all, and the team competes for a championship. Russell Westbrook might have cared too much about trying to be the best, at least for a single season, and it probably cost his team a better chance to compete for a ring.
The negative impact of the be "like mike" era in the 90's is that it produced many high flying , high light reel conscious,cant shoot flame outs, While now we are on the verge of seeing the effects of the "decision lebron" era in the career of kevin Durant (poster boy). Honestly i really dont think that KD would ever imagine or even have the nerve to join the warriors if Lebron never lay the ground work for others to follow him. Kevin Durant just did it more shamelessly by going to a ATG team while Lebron called up and assembled his stacked team from nothing, but still Lebron started and others are just imitating it.
if you think KD with a ring on a Warriors Team with 3 all stars which has won 67,73,67 games in the last 3 regular season < KD without a ring with an OKC team with a knuckle head westbrook which went WCF last year, you are clearly delusional, KD didn't get better, he is still the same KD, in my mind his greatness as an NBA player only dropped in this case. i think lots of posters ealier have also mentioned that, you are missing the point of comparing Competitive Sports with normal life, Medical school , switching companies are totally different than playing in a sports, why people love sports? because of the competitiveness it brings out of people, no matter if we are actual players or fans, we get satisfaction from the competition, you think MJ, Bird and all the greats would be happy just winning a Ring on a super team rather than beating a super team with their own team i don't have a problem with you view, but it is wrong to put it on an athlete, that's what all i can say
"Well golly! I got's me money, so I gon do whateva the **** I want! **** integrity! **** honor! **** competition! **** the game that got me here!! I gon piggyback me a ring on a team that was 1 game away from back to back championships! And woulda got if Draymond wasn't injured! No one gon give a **** , but it's a big deal in my mind and my homeboys gon back me on this one! New money biatcheessssss, bottom b**** pride ! I'm rich b****hhhhhh. " _Kevanna Jun 14, 2017
No, I think KD with a ring is greater than KD without a ring. I think you messed up your sign? Of course the feeling of beating a "super team" with your own team is a greater feeling than beating a super team with your own super team. But Durant couldn't beat the Heat's Big 3 back in 2012 with OKC. And he couldn't beat the Warriors in 2016 with OKC, either. There came a point in KD's career, in which he had to choose - go to another team that gives you a better chance at winning a title, or stick with a team that might never ever make it to the Finals again. In this case, the Warriors both gave him a better chance at winning a title and has proven they can beat a LeBron-led team; the '12 version of OKC couldn't do it and the '16 version of OKC probably couldn't do that. I'm confused as to what I'm putting on an athlete. This thread is about labeling KD a "eunuch," or a "b****," or whatever derogatory label fits. This is NOT the face of a man who regrets his decision, despite knowing the backlash he would face, if he won:
There's a big difference between Lebron and Durant. Lebron's teams always need him to be great, so it is a super team but he is needed, its like the original justice league only superman can really handle the big boss like Dark Seid, the rest just handle the other villains. In the same way, although Lebron has a super team he always needed to bring out everything he's got or else they will lose. Haters always bring up that Lebron needed others to win but forget all of Lebron's opponents were super teams too, its not like he was jordan beating up on hakeem who was playing with broke leg sampson and crackheads. In Durant's case it was fine for him to look for a better team, but he went to a team that is already considered the best team in the league. Its like Spiderman joining the Avengers...is spidey really needed when captain america and ironman and thor and hulk already there? Why couldnt he have gone to a team like the Rox and Clippers and made them great?
