Kevin Durant Longhorn Legend

[ChiTownDoc 21323]

2 minutes ago, CurlyDumps said:

Ding ding ding. You know this is gnawing at KD most. He has eyes.  He can see it too. 

I mean, Steph literally said they were SMILING in the huddle after KD limped off with what looked like a serious injury.  SMILING! They were HAPPY! What team in the history of the sport would EVER be SMILING after a player of KD’s caliber went down?

JFC, did he really say that?  Not doubting it, but surprised he would say that to the media, full well knowing it would really hit KD emotionally. 

[CurlyDumps 4618]

4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

JFC, did he really say that?  Not doubting it, but surprised he would say that to the media, full well knowing it would really hit KD emotionally. 

 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

5 minutes ago, CurlyDumps said:

Ding ding ding. You know this is gnawing at KD most. He has eyes.  He can see it too. 

I mean, Steph literally said they were SMILING in the huddle after KD limped off with what looked like a serious injury.  SMILING! They were HAPPY! What team in the history of the sport would EVER be SMILING after a player of KD’s caliber went down?

The original big three is relishing this opportunity a little too much. Says something about the chemistry and state of the team this season.

 

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

JFC, did he really say that?  Not doubting it, but surprised he would say that to the media, full well knowing it would really hit KD emotionally. 

I don’t even think he realized it when he was saying it, but that’s what he said. I don’t think he meant it as a shot to KD. I just think it’s obvious to the naked eye. They’re more fun to watch when KD isn’t out there. I also think everyone in that building knows KD is gone after this season. Where there’s this much smoke, there’s fire. He’s had every chance to deny it. 

[Reynolds Woodcock 5064]

My view is the Warriors don't NEED Durant to win, but he is a cheat code that makes them unbeatable. That said, this version of the Warriors is much more aesthetically pleasing and a good reminder that Steph Curry is one of the 15-20 greatest players of all time and a certifiable bad ass. 

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

So, everyone assumes GSW take a step back when/if KD leaves, but what are the rules about doing a sign and trade so GSW get something back, and to open up more possible destinations for him.  

It looks like he does have a player option, so he could do like Chris Paul and opt in to facilitate a trade under the promise of an extension with th new team.  

(Btw, I haven't run this by pop, but spurs would do  KD for derozen.😀 )

[Jhawk 1075]

26 minutes ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

So, everyone assumes GSW take a step back when/if KD leaves, but what are the rules about doing a sign and trade so GSW get something back, and to open up more possible destinations for him.  

It looks like he does have a player option, so he could do like Chris Paul and opt in to facilitate a trade under the promise of an extension with th new team.  

(Btw, I haven't run this by pop, but spurs would do  KD for derozen.😀 )

Why give up assets to get him when you know he is coming either way?  Don't make the best team better.

[SilasCoade 2622]

The best asset gsw can get is cap space anyway.

[aggie08 21733]

23 minutes ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

So, everyone assumes GSW take a step back when/if KD leaves, but what are the rules about doing a sign and trade so GSW get something back, and to open up more possible destinations for him.  

It looks like he does have a player option, so he could do like Chris Paul and opt in to facilitate a trade under the promise of an extension with th new team.  

(Btw, I haven't run this by pop, but spurs would do  KD for derozen.😀 )

I was wondering about that myself. I can see KD wanting to do them a solid on the way out. But Golden State wouldn't want anybody on the Knicks roster, so it would have to be a 3-teamer. My guess is, assuming they couldn't get a legit star back in return, they'd rather just get KD off their books than pay an assload of luxury tax (well, more than they're already paying) for a collection of much lesser players that add up to KD's salary. Take their chances with a nice wing player for the MLE and some guys on the vet minimum.

Also, KD is on a discounted contract. He'll want to make more next season.

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

10 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Why give up assets to get him when you know he is coming either way?  Don't make the best team better.

Well the idea is a trade would allow teams that didn't have the space to sign him to trade for him.  may even teams that are closer to completing for a title.

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

9 minutes ago, Llogg said:

The best asset gsw can get is cap space anyway.

I think even if KD leaves they are capped out.  Still have to sign Klay too.  

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

9 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

y guess is, assuming they couldn't get a legit star back in return, they'd rather just get KD off their books than pay an assload of luxury tax (well, more than they're already paying) for a collection of much lesser players that add up to KD's salary

This is a good point. Wonder if they would take a slightly shitty contract back if there was a high draft pick attached.  

[Jhawk 1075]

54 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

My view is the Warriors don't NEED Durant to win, but he is a cheat code that makes them unbeatable. That said, this version of the Warriors is much more aesthetically pleasing and a good reminder that Steph Curry is one of the 15-20 greatest players of all time and a certifiable bad ass. 

KD allows the rest of the team to work less.  Steph is down in points and attempts since KD got there.  Green is also down on attempts and points.  That makes all kind of sense with the talent that KD brings.  Their assists are all down too though.  KD is great but he is a ball stopper.  I think the comment about the team smiling when KD went down has more to do with them being excited to get back to their old ways of slinging the ball around the court than being an indictment on their feelings of KD.  They are a damn good team with him because they can essentially rest while he carries the load.  They'll be just fine without him because they can still pass and still shoot.  KD being there might have actually extended their window of championship competition by 2-3 years because of the lesser load on the big 3.

[Jhawk 1075]

13 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I was wondering about that myself. I can see KD wanting to do them a solid on the way out. But Golden State wouldn't want anybody on the Knicks roster, so it would have to be a 3-teamer. My guess is, assuming they couldn't get a legit star back in return, they'd rather just get KD off their books than pay an assload of luxury tax (well, more than they're already paying) for a collection of much lesser players that add up to KD's salary. Take their chances with a nice wing player for the MLE and some guys on the vet minimum.

Also, KD is on a discounted contract. He'll want to make more next season.

Yep... Why pay luxury tax for 2-3 middle of the road assets you get back in return.  KD's jersey and mech sales can probably mitigate the taxes to some extent.  Anyone they would get in return wouldn't sell shit to help justify the tax.

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

5 minutes ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

I think even if KD leaves they are capped out.  Still have to sign Klay too.  

I also think any team that is under the cap can trade for KD and send back a trade exception.  Not sure why a team with space would do that, but perhaps a team that was only a few million from signing him outright could trade a player and cap exception. 

[ztejas 44114]

18 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

KD being there might have actually extended their window of championship competition by 2-3 years because of the lesser load on the big 3.

This is a great point and something that I never see brought up in these discussions. With KD they can sleepwalk to 55+ wins and through the first/second round every year. Makes it a lot easier for them to rattle off 5 straight wins after he goes down. 

1 hour ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

So, everyone assumes GSW take a step back when/if KD leaves, but what are the rules about doing a sign and trade so GSW get something back, and to open up more possible destinations for him.  

It looks like he does have a player option, so he could do like Chris Paul and opt in to facilitate a trade under the promise of an extension with th new team.  

(Btw, I haven't run this by pop, but spurs would do  KD for derozen.😀 )

Durant is not signing for $25MM. He is worth twice that and has zero incentive to keep leaving money on the table. He will either stay or leave but either way he is signing a max contract. 

[Dutchrudder 11228]

57 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Durant is not signing for $25MM. He is worth twice that and has zero incentive to keep leaving money on the table. He will either stay or leave but either way he is signing a max contract. 

He has foregone about 50 million or more in salary by not taking a full max yet. Granted he couldn't get on the team without taking a huge paycut that first year, but he didn't even max the next 2 years after that. He certainly may be willing to take less elsewhere for the good of the team, or to surround himself with buddies who won't hurt his poor little feelings. He's missed out on a ton of money to get some rings that no one respects, and if the Warriors win #3 without him, his legacy will really fall apart. If he leaves, he's gonna be trying to build a whole new legacy with another team for the last couple years of his prime, and that's going to be tough to do with the Knicks. He better be willing to take some paycuts if he wants that roster to improve to championship levels.

[ztejas 44114]

22 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

He has foregone about 50 million or more in salary by not taking a full max yet. Granted he couldn't get on the team without taking a huge paycut that first year, but he didn't even max the next 2 years after that. He certainly may be willing to take less elsewhere for the good of the team, or to surround himself with buddies who won't hurt his poor little feelings. He's missed out on a ton of money to get some rings that no one respects, and if the Warriors win #3 without him, his legacy will really fall apart. If he leaves, he's gonna be trying to build a whole new legacy with another team for the last couple years of his prime, and that's going to be tough to do with the Knicks. He better be willing to take some paycuts if he wants that roster to improve to championship levels.

Fantastic conjecture. Here, do you need a source or do you just want to keep making biased, nonsensical takes?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2802945-kevin-durant-only-thinking-about-money-hes-going-to-get-not-free-agency-s-t

Here, have some more:

https://knicksfilmschool.com/2018/10/26/how-do-the-knicks-create-enough-cap-space-to-sign-kevin-durant/

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by ztejas

[ztejas 44114]

https://sports.yahoo.com/joe-lacob-confident-about-kevin-durants-status-hes-coming-back-now-for-the-finals-014305955.html

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

23 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

What planet are you on? KD was 10/31 in game 6 and only took 19 shots in game 7. He was awful in the last two games as was Russ. And they were both blasted for it. 

KD was miserable in game 6.  Maybe the worst performance in his NBA career with the context of the moment.  He was fine in game 7.  10-19, 3-7 from 3 and only 2 turnovers.  Russ was the god awful in both.

 

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

3 hours ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

So, everyone assumes GSW take a step back when/if KD leaves, but what are the rules about doing a sign and trade so GSW get something back, and to open up more possible destinations for him.  

It looks like he does have a player option, so he could do like Chris Paul and opt in to facilitate a trade under the promise of an extension with th new team.  

(Btw, I haven't run this by pop, but spurs would do  KD for derozen.😀 )

He could do that but history has shown that UFA's who do this only weaken their own cause by eliminating assets on their own destination.  Superstars like KD, who make more from marketing deals than they do from NBA contracts typically just sign outright.

 

[Jhawk 1075]

If KD doesn't come back and the warriors win the finals then he doesn't really have a legacy other than ring chasing while in his prime.  Unless he goes to another team and carries them like Lebron did with cleveland for so many years.  Sure we'll call him a champion but the fact will remain that he left a team at the cusp of beating the best regular season team of all time and went to the best regular season team of all time.  He'll never escape that without winning big at a place like NYK and we all know that isn't going to happen during his career.

I actually think the only way the warriors don't win is if they get KD back at less than 100%.  At 70% he'll try to be himself and the ball will stop and he will be a slightly better melo because he isn't getting the same lift on his shot and can't move on D with a calf injury.  You play him because he's KD but him doing too much while injured could sink the team.

[Machinator 32102]

2 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

If KD doesn't come back and the warriors win the finals then he doesn't really have a legacy other than ring chasing while in his prime.  Unless he goes to another team and carries them like Lebron did with cleveland for so many years.  Sure we'll call him a champion but the fact will remain that he left a team at the cusp of beating the best regular season team of all time and went to the best regular season team of all time.  He'll never escape that without winning big at a place like NYK and we all know that isn't going to happen during his career.

I actually think the only way the warriors don't win is if they get KD back at less than 100%.  At 70% he'll try to be himself and the ball will stop and he will be a slightly better melo because he isn't getting the same lift on his shot and can't move on D with a calf injury.  You play him because he's KD but him doing too much while injured could sink the team.

I'm not going to argue that KD took the "Hardest Road" (which was almost as ridiculous a message as LeBron's Decision), but you aren't just a ring chaser when you win two Finals MVPs for a team.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

If KD is 70% he has to play. Accept that you aren’t 100%, have the offense go through Steph while he’s on this historic pace, and get in where you fit in. But he needs to get on the court and stop this narrative. While it’s funny, and somewhat true, that would be a tough way to end your career with the warriors. On the bench while they prove they don’t need you. But this is the risk you take when you sign with a team that won 73 games and one game away from being back to back champs the year before you get there. 

Edited May 22, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[ztejas 44114]

10 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

If KD doesn't come back and the warriors win the finals then he doesn't really have a legacy other than ring chasing while in his prime.  Unless he goes to another team and carries them like Lebron did with cleveland for so many years.  Sure we'll call him a champion but the fact will remain that he left a team at the cusp of beating the best regular season team of all time and went to the best regular season team of all time.  He'll never escape that without winning big at a place like NYK and we all know that isn't going to happen during his career.

I actually think the only way the warriors don't win is if they get KD back at less than 100%.  At 70% he'll try to be himself and the ball will stop and he will be a slightly better melo because he isn't getting the same lift on his shot and can't move on D with a calf injury.  You play him because he's KD but him doing too much while injured could sink the team.

I think assuming the Warriors sans KD are going to beat Milwaukee or Toronto without HCA is a dangerous assumption. Both of those teams are much better than a Portland team missing their 3rd best player. 

I don't think they are a better team trying to force an injured Durant into the lineup, but I don't think that's the only way they lose in the Finals. Milwaukee and Toronto are good teams and being a little disrespected imo. This isn't the 2018 Cavs. 

[Jhawk 1075]

1 minute ago, Machinator said:

I'm not going to argue that KD took the "Hardest Road" (which was almost as ridiculous a message as LeBron's Decision), but you aren't just a ring chaser when you win two Finals MVPs for a team.

Iggy won an MVP too.  No one is going to say he was the best player on the team.  He went to the best team in the history of the league.  They didn't need him to win 2 more championships.  He just piled on.  I'm not saying he isn't a great player and I'm not saying he didn't contribute.  I'm saying that his 2 MVP's don't mean shit because someone from that team was going to win those anyway.  Everyone else on the team just agreed to give him more usage.  This was the year after Curry won UNANIMOUS MVP for the first time in the history of the league.  Let's not act like it is or ever was Durant's team because he got a finals MVP.  Durant wouldn't have even been in the position to get a finals MVP if he didn't run to the bay so he could get into the finals.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

8 minutes ago, Machinator said:

I'm not going to argue that KD took the "Hardest Road" (which was almost as ridiculous a message as LeBron's Decision), but you aren't just a ring chaser when you win two Finals MVPs for a team.

It’s not ring chasing, but when you’re the best player on what is clearly the best team in the NBA, isn’t it kind of expected that you win finals MVP? We see how different Steph, Klay, and Draymond play when he’s out there. From the moment he signed, I feel like it would’ve been a safe prediction to say that the warriors would win the next two finals, and the best player on the team, KD, would win finals MVP. It’s the easiest possible road you could take. 

[Jhawk 1075]

2 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

If KD is 70% he has to play. Accept that you aren’t 100%, have the offense go through Steph while he’s on this historic pace, and get in where you fit in. But he needs to get on the court and stop this narrative. While it’s funny, and somewhat true, that would be a tough way to end your career with the warriors. On the bench while they prove they don’t need you. But this is the risk you take when you sign with a team that won 73 games and one game away from being back to back champs the year before you got there. 

The problem is that if he could accept that he isn't the best option on even just 20% of the possessions then he would have beat GSW and OKC would probably have a ring.  Neither he nor Westbrook accept that they might not be the best hand to have the ball in.  That's why there was so much turmoil in the first place this year.  Durant is acting like it is his team and some people on the roster (green) don't like that.

His legacy really is at stake and he might do more for it by becoming a roll player in the finals than to try and win the finals by himself (or not play in it).

[ztejas 44114]

2 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Iggy won an MVP too.  No one is going to say he was the best player on the team.  He went to the best team in the history of the league.  They didn't need him to win 2 more championships.  He just piled on.  I'm not saying he isn't a great player and I'm not saying he didn't contribute.  I'm saying that his 2 MVP's don't mean shit because someone from that team was going to win those anyway.  Everyone else on the team just agreed to give him more usage.  This was the year after Curry won UNANIMOUS MVP for the first time in the history of the league.  Let's not act like it is or ever was Durant's team because he got a finals MVP.  Durant wouldn't have even been in the position to get a finals MVP if he didn't run to the bay so he could get into the finals.

Iggy was not putting up 35 points a game and hitting daggers in the 4th quarter across from the greatest player in the world. Durant was on those teams - he gets credit for winning the title just like anyone else on the team does. I doubt you would be sitting here saying the same thing about Curry if he had won FMVP in 2017 and 2018 with Durant on the team. The Cavs in 2017 were really fucking good. So were the Rockets in 2018. Either of those teams would have spanked this Blazers team just like the Warriors just did.

You can't guarantee that the Ws win in 2017 and 2018 without Durant. 

[Machinator 32102]

"Ring chaser" implies someone who signs with a team and does little to help them win a championship. At least that's what it has always meant to me.

[ztejas 44114]

14 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

It’s not ring chasing, but when you’re the best player on what is clearly the best team in the NBA, isn’t it kind of expected that you win finals MVP? We see how different Steph, Klay, and Draymond play when he’s out there. From the moment he signed, I feel like it would’ve been a safe prediction to say that the warriors would win the next two finals, and the best player on the team, KD, would win finals MVP. It’s the easiest possible road you could take. 

Yes it's a generally safe prediction - but you still have to play the games. You still have to show up when it counts. Durant's titles and FMVPs aren't some monumental accomplishments for a player of his caliber but they are still trophies. 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

21 minutes ago, ztejas said:

You can't guarantee that the Ws win in 2017 and 2018 without Durant. 

We can all agree on this. But if his stay with the warriors is sandwiched between them winning 73 games, being one game away from being back to back champs, and them winning it all this year, at the very least you would have to admit they would’ve been the favorite to win it all in ‘17 and ‘18. There’s no way of knowing how those seasons would’ve played out. What we do know is Steph, Klay, and Draymond, the nucleus of a 73 win team, play better when he isn’t on the floor. They pick up the pieces and continue to play hall of fame caliber basketball. That isn’t a good look for someone who is going to go down as a top 10 player all time. There wasn’t an easier path that he could’ve taken. The fact that it is even a talking point in the world of sports isn’t a good look. He knows that. That’s why he’s out here defending himself at every turn. Perception is reality, and the if they find a way to win a title without him, it will look like they probably didn’t need him. And the fact that they are now 30-1 without him doesn’t help either. 

I honestly don’t think he expected it to be this easy. 

Edited May 22, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[Dutchrudder 11228]

19 minutes ago, Machinator said:

"Ring chaser" implies someone who signs with a team and does little to help them win a championship. At least that's what it has always meant to me.

Ray Allen contributed plenty to the Miami Heat Championship over the Spurs, and I would call him a ring chaser. He left the 2nd best team in the East to go join the #1 team in the east, who just won a title the year before. In doing so, he also hurt the 2nd best team in the East, making it easier for them to get to the Finals.

[ztejas 44114]

2 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

But if his stay with the warriors is sandwiched between them winning 73 games, being one game away from being back to back champs,

Easy there. They were also one game away from Durant beating them and not making the Finals. 

3 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

And the fact that they are now 30-1 without him doesn’t help either. 

I think it's like 30-4 or something - but a ridiculous record either way. That said, they definitely never needed Durant to win games in the regular season. He was a huge factor in beating the Cavs in 2017 (also helped will them through the Jazz in 2017 with Curry and Klay having some poor nights) as well as getting them through the first 6 games of the playoffs last year without Curry (which of course no one brings up).

I think in small sample sizes the Warriors can recreate that 2016 magic - but I don't think they would have had enough in the tank for 5 straight Finals trips and 3 titles were Durant to make a different decision in 2016. Especially considering they might have ran into him at some-point in the playoffs whether it be in the West or in the Finals. 

10 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

Perception is reality, and the if they find a way to win a title without him, it will look like they probably didn’t need him.

If this happens - yes, it will look like they probably didn't need him this season. But they definitely needed him to 3 peat - whether it be for his contributions on the floor or simply his contribution to weakening the field. 

But, I'm fully expecting KD to return, put up 28 ppg or something in the Finals, either him or Steph or Draymond win Finals MVP and then he's off on his merry way to NY. 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

24 minutes ago, ztejas said:

If this happens - yes, it will look like they probably didn't need him this season. But they definitely needed him to 3 peat - whether it be for his contributions on the floor or simply his contribution to weakening the field. 

But, I'm fully expecting KD to return, put up 28 ppg or something in the Finals, either him or Steph or Draymond win Finals MVP and then he's off on his merry way to NY. 

This is really my main point in regards to his legacy. KD isn’t the type of player you just add to get over the hump when you were one game away from winning a finals. You add him to build around. The shit was already built. They recruited him because they had the cap space, and of course you dip your toe in the KD free agency market. Why not. When they signed him, they just kind of catered to him being on the team since he was clearly the best player.

And you’re absolutely right in saying they “needed” him to guarantee that they win the championship in ‘17 and ‘18 because he was their biggest threat in the west. There was certainly a possibility that he could’ve come back and beat the warriors the next year with OKC or any other team. Had he done that, it would’ve done more for his legacy than joining a 73 win team to help them “get over the hump” (just typing that is laughable to me, but for the sake of the argument...). He added a wrinkle to his legacy that will never go away, and it will avalanche if he can’t get back on the court during these finals. He took the easiest path that he could’ve taken to win his championships. Say what you want, but I think people will talk about that when they’re talking about the history of the nba, and the greatest players in nba history. 

I don’t even know if this is a hot take, but I think most people would agree that Dirk’s one championship and finals MVP does more for his legacy than Durant’s 2. Wade winning one before lebron got there does more for his legacy than Durant’s 2 finals mvp’s. The list of players like that can go on and on. Or maybe it can’t, because I can’t think of anymore lol, but you get my point. He didn’t need to do this to himself lol.

Edited May 22, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[ztejas 44114]

7 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

This is really my main point in regards to his legacy. KD isn’t the type of player you just add to get over the hump when you were one game away from winning a finals. You add him to build around. The shit was already built. They recruited him because they had the cap space, and of course you dip your toe in the KD free agency market. Why not. When they signed him, they just kind of catered to him being on the team since he was clearly the best player.

And you’re absolutely right in saying they “needed” him to guarantee that they win the championship in ‘17 and ‘18 because he was their biggest threat in the west. There was certainly a possibility that he could’ve come back and beat the warriors the next year with OKC or any other team. Had he done that, it would’ve done more for his legacy than joining a 73 win team to help them “get over the hump” (just typing that is laughable to me, but for the sake of the argument...). He added a wrinkle to his legacy that will never go away, and it will avalanche if he can’t get back on the court during these finals. He took the easiest path that he could’ve taken to win his championships. Say what you want, but I think people will talk about that when they’re talking about the history of the nba, and the greatest players in nba history. 

I don’t even know if this is a hot take, but I think most people would agree that Dirk’s one championship and finals MVP does more for his legacy than Durant’s 2. Wade winning one before lebron got there does more for his legacy than Durant’s 2 finals mvp’s. The list of players like that can go on and on. Or maybe it can’t, because I can’t think of anymore lol, but you get my point. He didn’t need to do this to himself lol.

Yeah I agree with all of that. I will say I think a FMVP 3 peat would probably outweigh any singular season put up by anyone else, regardless of circumstance. 

[Reynolds Woodcock 5064]

10 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

I don’t even know if this is a hot take, but I think most people would agree that Dirk’s one championship and finals MVP does more for his legacy than Durant’s 2. Wade winning one before lebron got there does more for his legacy than Durant’s 2 finals mvp’s. The list of players like that can go on and on. Or maybe it can’t, because I can’t think of anymore lol, but you get my point. He didn’t need to do this to himself lol.

Maybe. If Durant stayed in OKC and squeaked out one championship (which I think is unlikely with Westbrook by his side), that one championship would be better than one championship in Golden State, but it isn't better than three championships and multiple Finals MVPs in Golden State.  And in any event, Wade and Dirk's solo championships might mean more individually than any of KD's, but few would argue either Dirk or Wade is a better player than KD (especially Wade). 

Ultimately,  I think KD's rings with Golden State will be viewed similar to LeBron's in Miami, in that it would be far better for his legacy to have won three in GSW than to pull a Karl Malone in OKC and never cross the finish line. It took the Cleveland championship to elevate LeBron into the GOAT conversation, and it will probably take a similar individual performance from KD to put him in the Top 10 or so.  To his credit, it seems like he realizes that and is about to start an new era of his career.  

[Jhawk 1075]

49 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I think it's like 30-4 or something - but a ridiculous record either way.

I think in small sample sizes the Warriors can recreate that 2016 magic

This is kind of an odd thought process.  The Warriors won before him in the regular season and the post season.  The warriors are 31-1 without durant (looked it up for us) and 6-0 without him in the playoffs this year.  The warriors are 28-18 when durant plays and curry doesn't (just tossing this in here).

I'd argue that the sample size showing they can win without him isn't just recreating magic in small spurts.  They flat out have a better winning percentage both in the playoffs and the regular season when he doesn't play.

[Dutchrudder 11228]

3 hours ago, ztejas said:

Fantastic conjecture. Here, do you need a source or do you just want to keep making biased, nonsensical takes?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2802945-kevin-durant-only-thinking-about-money-hes-going-to-get-not-free-agency-s-t

Here, have some more:

https://knicksfilmschool.com/2018/10/26/how-do-the-knicks-create-enough-cap-space-to-sign-kevin-durant/

 

He might go for the max this offseason (and he should), but he hasn't requested it since joining GS. He made the decision to take paycuts in GS the entire way, and in doing so, he let GS keep the team together instead of having to make hard decisions. He made 81 million in 3 years from GS, 55m over the past two, instead of taking a supermax at 35% of the cap in 2018 and securing about 220 million over 5 years. He should be getting over 40+ million a year. I guess it's commendable, but it harms the competitiveness of the league when this happens, because other stars aren't willing to forego tens of millions of dollars in salary like he is. Golden State as the team is currently built, should not be exist in a league with a salary cap, but here we are. It really highlights how much of a failure the max/supermax deal is in the NBA, as it seems to only be used by teams to retain players out of necessity. 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

19 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Maybe. If Durant stayed in OKC and squeaked out one championship (which I think is unlikely with Westbrook by his side), that one championship would be better than one championship in Golden State, but it isn't better than three championships and multiple Finals MVPs in Golden State.  And in any event, Wade and Dirk's solo championships might mean more individually than any of KD's, but few would argue either Dirk or Wade is a better player than KD (especially Wade). 

Ultimately,  I think KD's rings with Golden State will be viewed similar to LeBron's in Miami, in that it would be far better for his legacy to have won three in GSW than to pull a Karl Malone in OKC and never cross the finish line. It took the Cleveland championship to elevate LeBron into the GOAT conversation, and it will probably take a similar individual performance from KD to put him in the Top 10 or so.  To his credit, it seems like he realizes that and is about to start an new era of his career.  

I’ve never understood this comparison. A big part of what made KDs move so egregious is the fact that he joined the team that knocked him out of the playoffs the year before, after he was up 3-1 against them. If Lebron would’ve joined the Celtics, or even the lakers during the last stages of Kobe’s prime years, it would’ve been a little bit more comparable, but still not as bad as what KD did. And by bad, I mean in terms of balance of power in the nba. 

 

Also, when you say “especially wade” I think most basketball people would say that Wade would rank higher on the list of all time players. I’m not saying I agree with it, but national perception is that wade was probably a better player than dirk 

Edited May 22, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[Jhawk 1075]

18 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Maybe. If Durant stayed in OKC and squeaked out one championship (which I think is unlikely with Westbrook by his side), that one championship would be better than one championship in Golden State, but it isn't better than three championships and multiple Finals MVPs in Golden State.  And in any event, Wade and Dirk's solo championships might mean more individually than any of KD's, but few would argue either Dirk or Wade is a better player than KD (especially Wade). 

Ultimately,  I think KD's rings with Golden State will be viewed similar to LeBron's in Miami, in that it would be far better for his legacy to have won three in GSW than to pull a Karl Malone in OKC and never cross the finish line. It took the Cleveland championship to elevate LeBron into the GOAT conversation, and it will probably take a similar individual performance from KD to put him in the Top 10 or so.  To his credit, it seems like he realizes that and is about to start an new era of his career.  

There is no doubt about any of this.  Rings are rings.  The asterisk is that Durant had to completely upset the balance of the league to get his and it will always be noted when talking about him and winning.  For a guy who gets bent out of shape with the smallest amount of criticism, he didn't do himself any favors in the glory department.  He'll be Bill Russell's age and will be complaining that he never got the respect he deserved because that is how he acts. 

[Jhawk 1075]

9 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

He might go for the max this offseason (and he should), but he hasn't requested it since joining GS. He made the decision to take paycuts in GS the entire way, and in doing so, he let GS keep the team together instead of having to make hard decisions. He made 81 million in 3 years from GS, 55m over the past two, instead of taking a supermax at 35% of the cap in 2018 and securing about 220 million over 5 years. He should be getting over 40+ million a year. I guess it's commendable, but it harms the competitiveness of the league when this happens, because other stars aren't willing to forego tens of millions of dollars in salary like he is. Golden State as the team is currently built, should not be exist in a league with a salary cap, but here we are. It really highlights how much of a failure the max/supermax deal is in the NBA, as it seems to only be used by teams to retain players out of necessity. 

Supermax was put in place solely to get Lebron and CP3 paid.  If others got paid for it that's fine too but it was to get CP3 his money and to let Lebron get compensated as he should since he is the #1 asset the league has.  CP3 helped negotiate the CBA and his only prerogative was to make sure he personally could make the most amount of money for the longest amount of time.  He didn't really have a conflict of interest, but all of his interests were taken care of first and foremost.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Jhawk

[Reynolds Woodcock 5064]

5 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

I’ve never understood this comparison. A big part of what made KDs move so egregious is the fact that he joined the team that knocked him out of the playoffs the year before, after he was up 3-1 against them. If Lebron would’ve joined the Celtics, or even the lakers during the last stages of Kobe’s prime years, it would’ve been a little bit more comparable, but still not as bad as what KD did. And by bad, I mean in terms of balance of power in the nba. 

 

I'm not saying they are apples to apples, and I largely agree with the differences you point out. Just that the championships won would be viewed similarly (i.e., not as important as carrying a team "yourself" (even though that is often a fallacy as well)).

 

7 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

Also, when you say “especially wade” I think most basketball people would say that Wade would rank higher on the list of all time players. I’m not saying I agree with it, but national perception is that wade was probably a better player than dirk 

 Really? That would be profoundly wrong. I admittedly listen to mostly Bill Simmons and other Ringer podcasts, so I might be basing my view on him ranking Dirk in the Top 15 of all time, and ranking Wade somewhere in the Top 40 or so.

[ztejas 44114]

26 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

This is kind of an odd thought process.  The Warriors won before him in the regular season and the post season.  The warriors are 31-1 without durant (looked it up for us) and 6-0 without him in the playoffs this year.  The warriors are 28-18 when durant plays and curry doesn't (just tossing this in here).

I'd argue that the sample size showing they can win without him isn't just recreating magic in small spurts.  They flat out have a better winning percentage both in the playoffs and the regular season when he doesn't play.

Yes, across 30 games and 5 games in the playoffs (they aren't 6-0 - he had 20 points in game 5 against Houston. And they were 5-1 last year in the playoffs without Curry).

That is different than 246 games in the regular season and 12 full playoff series. I don't know why you would argue otherwise - you already made the point up the thread that he has extended their dynasty by reducing everyone's workload on both sides of the ball. 

And your numbers are still wrong, can't believe I'm looking this shit up but I'm bored at work so whatever (all are without Durant, with Curry):

2016-2017: 16-3 in the regular season, 2-0 in the playoffs

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duranke01/gamelog/2017

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01/gamelog/2017

2017-2018: 5-0 in the regular season, didn't miss a playoff game

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duranke01/gamelog/2018

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01/gamelog/2018

2018-2019: 3-1 regular season, 5-0 playoffs

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duranke01/gamelog/2019

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01/gamelog/2019

 

So they are 24-4 in the regular season, 7-0 in the playoffs. 31-4 total. That is still a very small sample size - about 12 games out of 100 each year. With the bulk of the wins coming in 2017. 

Oh and 6 of the 7 playoff wins are against the Blazers - who they didn't even struggle against in 2016 without Curry OR Durant. 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by ztejas

[hobbes2702 13351]

42 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

I’ve never understood this comparison. A big part of what made KDs move so egregious is the fact that he joined the team that knocked him out of the playoffs the year before, after he was up 3-1 against them. If Lebron would’ve joined the Celtics, or even the lakers during the last stages of Kobe’s prime years, it would’ve been a little bit more comparable, but still not as bad as what KD did. And by bad, I mean in terms of balance of power in the nba. 

 

Also, when you say “especially wade” I think most basketball people would say that Wade would rank higher on the list of all time players. I’m not saying I agree with it, but national perception is that wade was probably a better player than dirk  

Anyone who makes those claims is clueless. Dirk is probably top 20 ever and completely changed the game.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

45 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Really? That would be profoundly wrong. I admittedly listen to mostly Bill Simmons and other Ringer podcasts, so I might be basing my view on him ranking Dirk in the Top 15 of all time, and ranking Wade somewhere in the Top 40 or so.

 

11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Anyone who makes those claims is clueless. Dirk is probably top 20 ever and completely changed the game.

Damn I didn’t mean to derail this thread on this topic. Just to be clear, I agree with y’all. I’m a spurs fan and I saw Dirk kill us for years with little to no help. I’m just talking national perception. Because national perception would say Wade is probably the 3rd best SG ever, and he had one of the most dominant finals performances ever when the Heat beat the mavs in 06. And he was an underrated defender, as opposed to dirk who played no defense. There’s definitely an argument to be made. Dirk had more of an impact on the game in my opinion, so I’m in agreement with you guys for the most part, but there’s definitely an argument for wade.

[SilasCoade 2622]

That 06 finals was a joke. If the Mavs looked at Wade hard the refs sent him to the line.

[52-80 19379]

Wade didn't beat the Mavs.  The refs beat the mavs

[MoJames 8258]

Wade didn't beat the Mavs.  The refs beat the mavs

KD going to the warriors beat the Mavs.

[ztejas 44114]

35 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

and he had one of the most dominant finals performances ever 

It was a nice Finals performance but I wouldn't call it one of the most dominant ever. He wasn't super efficient and did a lot of scoring from the line. 

I think Wade is generally a little slept on but it's hard for me to argue him over Dirk all time. Dirk was really really good for a longer stretch than Wade was. Wade only had about 6 great, full seasons where he didn't miss 25 or 30 games. He just couldn't stay healthy. 

Meanwhile from 2001 to 2011 Dirk never missed more than 9 games in a season - and averaged 24/9/3 on 48/39/88 shooting splits - and led a lot of really good Mavs teams. 

To add to that he's 6th in all time scoring - and I don't think Wade has a case over anyone in the top 10 in that metric (MAYBE Karl Malone but that would be heavily dependent on the criteria used).

[52-80 19379]

Wade taught LeBron how to flop, so that should give him a few extra credit points as well