I play a lot of ball and I can understand the appeal. GSW is a good team that plays (to me) a very fun style of basketball. Durant can go to GSW, have a lot of fun, win a ring, and be an important member of a team that is a strong candidate for GOAT. Then he can opt out and go help another team (like the Celtics!)
It has been argued ( and I kinda agree ) that that is pretty unlikely next year. Not only is it extremely hard in of itself, but I think a championship is the goal. Given that three key players are going to be in the Olympics, conserving minutes and resting players is probably going to be a big deal. Plus no matter how well Durant fits, you also have to ease in Pachulia, West etc. into a new system - there will probably be a lot of experimental lineups thrown out there, especially in the first half of the season. I think a still very impressive 60-70 is more realistic.
You called his decision “weak”; you said it “disgusts you”; and you dismiss any contribution he has even yet to make as simply “participant”. That, to me, is a huge step beyond “well, they could (and did) win a championship without him”. I understand that Durant won’t be as necessary for wins with GSW as he was with OKC, but what I don’t get is the venom toward him that comes from you when expressing that opinion.
On one hand, yeah, it’s too easy to just join an already championship caliber team. But two points in favor of such a move:
The NBA, even more than MLB or the NFL, is more efficient than other sports in that the best teams usually win and there are fewer genuine surprises barring injuries. The teams that are supposed to contend for the title usually do. OKC was a bit short and was always going to be a bit short barring a blockbuster free agent addition. The last 30 years have seen a ton of HoF caliber NBA players never win a ring. So it’s understandable that the greatest players at some point will get fed up with waiting and join a team that can win.
Superteams are awesome. It’s all the more special when a superteam gets beat. Parity may be good for some pro sports towns, but it’s the superteams that expand the fanbase and create storylines for casual fans. There is no NBA finals with a superteam that doesn’t rock. Either two titans duke it out, or it’s the superteam vs. the plucky underdog.
I see in this morning’s paper that Ezeli is coming to Portland. The Blazers really need a big, tough guy inside. Plumlee is becoming a pretty good defender, but I don’t think he has the muscle, and his inside shot really sucks.
In 1978-79, the year before Larry Bird and Magic Johnson joined the NBA, the Boston Celtics were 29-53. The Los Angeles Lakers were better at 47-35, which was tied with three other teams for the sixth-best record in the NBA. Except for Abdul-jabbar, the other big names came later, unlike Golden State now
While I understand why players want to win a championship (Wilt Chamberlain led the league in all sorts of categories, including assists and was denigrated for "only winning two championships"), it looks kind of weak to me...like Kyle Busch racing against weaker drivers and teams in all these Xfinity and Camping World Truck support series that NASCAR has. Or Roger Clemens suddenly deciding he wanted to pitch in New York after the Yankees won 114 regular season game and the World Series.
Without Durant, GSW wins more regular season games than any other team in history and was on the cusp of winning the title and “Best Team in the History of the Game” moniker.
Without Durant, OKC is done, they’ll be lucky to make the playoffs.
This is not the first time a great player chased a championship, but it’s the first time a great player joined a historically great team while chasing a championship. Barkley didn’t jump to the Bulls, he joined the playoff bound Suns. Shaq went to the Lakers when they had an 18 year old Kobe who didn’t even start for 2 years.
Anyway, it rubs me the wrong way, and when I’m cranky, rubbing me the wrong way gets me pissed off over things that don’t really impact me very much.