2017 NBA Offseason

[themiddle54]

...if we're having a sane and sober discussion

Oh yeah. There's that condescension I've missed like candy. I know it must be exhausting being so correct and rational so I won't pile on your workload. But before I go, can you please do that old hit from the politics threads about how empathetic you are to other people's points of views?

I mean, I know you prefer a hysterical discussion in which Kevin Durant handles his career The Right Way so that the game--which he helps define and you most certainly do not--fits more to your ideals than his needs as a professional. Which is utterly absurd. And since you opt to have the conversation in hysterics instead of sane and sober, you're not exactly entitled to the high horse you're coming from with your little personal attack.

[Socnorb11]

They also added a three-time EuroLeague Final Four MVP who utterly dominated European basketball at a time when going after international guys wasn't super sexy around the league.

Sure they did. Again, they are running a business. There is a financial incentive for them to win. Even at that though, they weren't a championship team pre-Pippen, and they didn't add one of the top 2 or 3 players in the league in his prime. Nobody has. It's unprecedented.

Why didn't Durant just buy a ring if he wanted one? It would have been just as meaningful as jumping aboard a team that was heavily favored to win one without him.

[Farewell Friends]

Avery Bradley to the Pistons for a Morris twin and a second round pick in 2019.

[themiddle54]

Sure they did. Again, they are running a business. There is a financial incentive for them to win. Even at that though, they weren't a championship team pre-Pippen, and they didn't add one of the top 2 or 3 players in the league in his prime. Nobody has. It's unprecedented.

In 1982 Moses Malone averaged 31.1 points and 14.7 rebounds per game and won the MVP and then as one of the 2-3 best players in the league in his prime (Moses would be 27 the next season) he jumped ship from his 46-win team that finished 3rd in their division to join the Sixers, who were coming off a 58-win season and a Finals loss to a Lakers team that the Sixers were better than, probably, like the Dubs were better than the '16 Cavs.

Now I know you're going to go "AHA but they were not a CHAMPIONSHIP team and Boston was probably better" as if that means then that Moses wasn't a MVP in his prime moving from a so-so team to an awesome one in essentially the same move Durant made when we get past the tidy little package of conditions you've built around yourself to pretend to be right about this, but that doesn't mean that some halcyon days of the NBA with parity where great players never moved teams really did exist outside yours and others' imaginations.

It's cool that you guys can draw designations though on how people like Durant and LeBron should make their own personal career decisions and portray them as morally inferior to other players since they want to work their job at the place where they have the best chance to be successful and happy. That's a totally healthy, sober, non-ridiculous way to think.

[Socnorb11]

Sure they did. Again, they are running a business. There is a financial incentive for them to win. Even at that though, they weren't a championship team pre-Pippen, and they didn't add one of the top 2 or 3 players in the league in his prime. Nobody has. It's unprecedented.

In 1982 Moses Malone averaged 31.1 points and 14.7 rebounds per game and won the MVP and then as one of the 2-3 best players in the league in his prime (Moses would be 27 the next season) he jumped ship from his 46-win team that finished 3rd in their division to join the Sixers, who were coming off a 58-win season and a Finals loss to a Lakers team that the Sixers were better than, probably, like the Dubs were better than the '16 Cavs.

Now I know you're going to go "AHA but they were not a CHAMPIONSHIP team and Boston was probably better" as if that means then that Moses wasn't a MVP in his prime moving from a so-so team to an awesome one in essentially the same move Durant made when we get past the tidy little package of conditions you've built around yourself to pretend to be right about this, but that doesn't mean that some halcyon days of the NBA with parity where great players never moved teams really did exist outside yours and others' imaginations.

It's cool that you guys can draw designations though on how people like Durant and LeBron should make their own personal career decisions and portray them as morally inferior to other players since they want to work their job at the place where they have the best chance to be successful and happy. That's a totally healthy, sober, non-ridiculous way to think.

It would be nice if you could have these conversations without the condescending conclusions. People have been telling you that for a long time though, and you still haven't made an effort to reel it in, so it's probably pointless to even suggest it at this point.

The Sixers didn't even with their division the year before Malone went there. They were counting on aging guys like Dr. J and Bobby Jones to carry them into the next season, while at the same time losing Darryl Dawkins. They wouldn't have been favored to even win their division, much less the 'ship without Malone joining them. That's not true of the Warriors. Overall though, the Malone/Sixers comparison is probably the best we've got. I don't recall what the reaction was then. Maybe you do.

Again (for like the 4th time), I'm aware that there are plenty of examples (a few every year, probably) of very good players changing teams. That's not the point.

Also, I never said that Durant was morally inferior. Being competitive and being moral aren't the same thing, and you can't just pretend that they are in order to string together a really stinging parting shot.

[thrill]

The best scorer of his generation, in his prime, joined a 73 win team. There is no precedent for that in what I feel perfectly comfortable calling the NBA as we know it.

That's only because there's not a precedent for a 73-win team.

Pretty sure that was his point bud. He doesn't like this new precedent.

The closest is a Bulls team that had won three in a row, then added the game's best rebounder-slash-defender to win another three in a row.

The most analogous comparison remains the 67-68 Lakers losing in the finals and then adding Wilt Chamberlain. The W's were better than that Lakers team, but Wilt was significantly better than Durant.

Maybe you can't make history fit your narrative of "the best scorer" joining "the greatest regular season team in history" (esp since there's only one greatest reg season team in history) but we can easily find four movement in the last 12 years of "the best player in the game" joining an team for the purpose of an easy ring and none of those four would include Durant.

I always enjoy it when you get super condescending but technically wrong.

In 96-97, MJ was the best player in the league, not Shaq. In 04-06, Lebron was the best player in the league, Tim Duncan was probably better too. Again, not Shaq.

And if you're going to count Lebron twice as the best player in the league as the only best player in the league to move to hunt a ring, you would again be wrong for overlooking Wilt. Not took mention, you said "hunt an easy ring." Nhone of the rings you reference were particularly easy. Durant's was much easier than any lebron won or Shaq's ring in Miami.


None of that is meaningfully important in the larger conversation bemoaning the state of the league, but you show boating and being technically wrong is always relevant.

[Socnorb11]

My only beef with the Wilt comparison is that Wilt had already proven that he could lead a team to a championship, prior to going to LA. Yeah, he probably wanted more, but he had nothing to prove.

[BottenFieldofDreams]

...if we're having a sane and sober discussion

Oh yeah. There's that condescension I've missed like candy. I know it must be exhausting being so correct and rational so I won't pile on your workload. But before I go, can you please do that old hit from the politics threads about how empathetic you are to other people's points of views?

I mean, I know you prefer a hysterical discussion in which Kevin Durant handles his career The Right Way so that the game--which he helps define and you most certainly do not--fits more to your ideals than his needs as a professional. Which is utterly absurd. And since you opt to have the conversation in hysterics instead of sane and sober, you're not exactly entitled to the high horse you're coming from with your little personal attack.

For a guy that preys on people feeling and arguing from emotion to throw rationale and stats at and win (the Kevin Durant of arguers in sports forums: you know, where it's super unchallenging) you sure are quick to become a Crying Jordan meme about 'personal attacks.' ...while in the same breath calling people hysterical after previously calling them insane and unsober. For the record, here in Oregon, what my horse smokes in the privacy of her own home is strictly legal. She can be as high as he likes. You leave my horse out of this. She's a good horse.

[themiddle54]

Why didn't Durant just buy a ring if he wanted one? It would have been just as meaningful as jumping aboard a team that was heavily favored to win one without him.

Let's say you're Kevin Durant. You're one of the 3-5 best players in the world and have talent and options as long as you can see. And you're going to leave OKC because you don't like the culture and you don't see yourself winning there--it's been a good run but it's just not going to happen with what you have. And you have the opportunity to go to several teams, among them Golden State, and their pitch to you is, hey kid, come live in the Bay Area where we have incredible culture and weather and food and entertainment and you have the opportunity to connect to a lot of tech people who open up after-basketball opportunities that are exciting and Draymond asks him in the Hamptons "How many rings do you think we with without you? How many rings do you think you win without us? How many rings do we win together?" and part of the deal is also that you'll be in a place where, hey, you can miss a third of the year with an injury and there's virtually zero animosity from the fans because it's the one of the most low-pressure high-success environments in team sports history. Your Nike deal alone is all the money that you and your great-great-great-grandchildren will need to live off of so you don't need to make money, or a max deal, or make being the highest paid a priority. You've said publicly that you don't want the family/friends distraction of going back home to DC. Half the league can't afford you. A third of the league are bad franchises stuck in perpetual mediocrity or failure.

Where do you sign? Put yourself in Kevin Durant's shoes and tell me where you go without including your own personal politics from your perspective as a fan. Where do you go?

Any condemnation of Durant and his choice is a reflection of the condemners personal politics and biases and not a reflection on Kevin Durant, who went out and got a better job. The criticism over Durant ruining the league (by doing something that more or less Wilt, Moses, Shaq 2X, LeBron 2X, Garnett, Drexler, Barkley and I don't know how many other players have done) and taking away the parity of our youths (like when only 7 teams won all the rings in a 26 year run from 80-05) is baseless. That parity never existed, and great players have abandoned the team that drafted them for rings for as long as we've had free agency in the league. So why do we moralize so specifically about Kevin Durant? What's the line, the place where it's drawn and we say a team of X quality can't attain a player of Y quality? Should Boston give back their three first-round draft picks next year? They're good on young talent already, and they have an elite roster in a weak conference. It's not really fair that they have so much while so many have so little.

[BottenFieldofDreams]

Why in the world should I do that? Once I strip away my biases and values, I'm left with a league with no meaning; or what Kevin Durant and the Warriors have created. I get to be whatever kind of NBA fan I like; a highly subjective, highly emotional one that likes SOME level of competition and a sliver of hope at some point in the future for his team, for example.

Look Prince Empathy, Mighty Condemner or Condemners, before you judge my judgments, strip away the biases and values YOU place in the league. Have you put any effort into detaching yourself from 'Kevin Durant did nothing wrong and people are being unfair?' Hell Kevin Durant condemned the Kevin Durants of the world a few years ago.

This isn't a matter of me holding some Industrial Revolution era boss's view of workers' rights. This is about the collateral damage created by Kevin Durant's decision. I feel perfectly comfortable judging him for that and blaming him and the team that told the guys they'd been riding with to piss off for. If the the small handful of players with the power to swing the outcomes of the league, or to remove all doubt about those outcomes, I'm doomed if this is how they're going to operate. I blame them for that. Soon enough the league could very well have to step in, and I would genuinely prefer players had that power--but also some pride that I could find a way to relate to.

I've said Kevin Durant gets to do what he wants and find whatever meaning in it he wants. The problem is my perception of meaning and his (and others, a troubling trend for me) are now so different. It's far more his league than mine. Frankly I doubt he or especially the powers above him are going to be worried about my opinion until I don't have one, if there are enough of me.

I don't believe I've stripped KD of any basic humanity in forming my opinions. I don't believe I have to declare that Drexler equals Durant to form these opinions. Especially because it isn't remotely true. I feel like I've made my subjectivity in the matter, and Durant's free will as well, clear enough--aside from certain arguments like those about 22 or Sabonis.

The league was decided last year before a single practice, it's decided next: based on Kevin Durant's decision. I think that sucks. Kevin Durant gets to make his decisions, and I get to think they suck and be angry about the fallout.

As far as line drawing goes, I think a good place to start is where something creates no reason to play the games (I prefer the NBA as a competitive sports league, not the Lourve) and 29 too many teams. In fact I'd scratch it out a little short of that.

But keep cycling through the incomparable, and all entirely irrelevant comps (you've made it clear I'm the insane one--and the diagnosis saved me thousands of dollars and lots of waiting room hours, so the jokes one you, sucker--but there is that cliched definition of insanity...). Maybe if I hear 'Drexler' one more time you'll convince me anyone has ever created an easier pat to the Championship than KD and left a more pointless league in a terrible trend in the wake. That Shaq team that swept the playoffs? That was pretty lame. But it doesn't make me rethink my judgement of Kevin Durant. What I don't need to see is evidence of previous Kevin Durants, it is a league that expletiving matters.

This isn't the NBA I want, and I reject the notion that it is pretty much all I've ever had.

*Edited, because I was, indeed not sober earlier.
**Middle, is this not safe behavior for an insane person? Also, can you write me some scripts?