Kevin Durant: Does He Stay or Does He Go?

[thunderc]

He is staying and for all the people saying OKC won't spend money, let this thing play out. Harden is the guy people bring up but he was not the player he is now back then. Compare him and Curry, they are from the same class. Curry signed for a little over 10 million a year. Now I ask you who is the better player? My point is James Harden wanted out of OKC and he got his wish. Wish him well but it wasn't going to work with him. If the Thunder don't figure out a way to get Kanter signed then come talk to me. Until then I see the Thunder being very strategic figuring out a way not to have to pay the repeat luxury tax offender tax to date. Let's be real, with all the injuries to key people they have had the last 3 years it would not have mattered what they did. It's crunch time, let's see what they do now.

 

[trojanfan12]

He is staying and for all the people saying OKC won't spend money, let this thing play out. Harden is the guy people bring up but he was not the player he is now back then. Compare him and Curry, they are from the same class. Curry signed for a little over 10 million a year. Now I ask you who is the better player? My point is James Harden wanted out of OKC and he got his wish. Wish him well but it wasn't going to work with him. If the Thunder don't figure out a way to get Kanter signed then come talk to me. Until then I see the Thunder being very strategic figuring out a way not to have to pay the repeat luxury tax offender tax to date. Let's be real, with all the injuries to key people they have had the last 3 years it would not have mattered what they did. It's crunch time, let's see what they do now.

Are you seriously suggesting that people wait and see what actually happens and not predict every doom and gloom, worst case scenario imaginable for any team other than the one they follow? Seriously?!?

 

[thunderc]

True, so true. Ok, let's hear all the crazy shit, what was i thinking?

 

[True Lakers Fan]

He is staying and for all the people saying OKC won't spend money, let this thing play out. Harden is the guy people bring up but he was not the player he is now back then. Compare him and Curry, they are from the same class. Curry signed for a little over 10 million a year. Now I ask you who is the better player? My point is James Harden wanted out of OKC and he got his wish. Wish him well but it wasn't going to work with him. If the Thunder don't figure out a way to get Kanter signed then come talk to me. Until then I see the Thunder being very strategic figuring out a way not to have to pay the repeat luxury tax offender tax to date. Let's be real, with all the injuries to key people they have had the last 3 years it would not have mattered what they did. It's crunch time, let's see what they do now.

You really don't know that though because the Thunder has a history of not paying top dollar to keep elite players. They let Harden go and they let two others go in order to keep the salaries below the cap and I understand that but let's face it. They are more interested in money then the championships and they most likely think they can do both. The only question is what does Durant think and Durant is going to do what he feels is in his both interest

 

[thunderc]

Tell me who the other 2 players were. And tell me they would have mattered after Russ went down the last 2 years. The Thunder would have exactly as many titles as they do if they had gone over the cap the last 3 years, but would not be positioned like they are. I truly think they would have won at least one title without the injuries. Everyone has their opinion but that is mine. In my opinion they will be a bigger favorite entering next season than the league has seen in a while. Of course that assumes KD is ready to go.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Tell me who the other 2 players were. And tell me they would have mattered after Russ went down the last 2 years. The Thunder would have exactly as many titles as they do if they had gone over the cap the last 3 years, but would not be positioned like they are. I truly think they would have won at least one title without the injuries. Everyone has their opinion but that is mine. In my opinion they will be a bigger favorite entering next season than the league has seen in a while. Of course that assumes KD is ready to go.

Man - if I could remember - I would have listed them, but I do remember there was on other one minimum that they let go and he was really good - but I simply can't remember his name. I will think of it eventually. Harden for sure, I looked at the list on wickepedia, and saw some names that I think they should have kept, but none I was thinking of, so perhaps I am remembering it wrong. The year they went to the finals is the best team they ever were though and that was the team they should have kept together.

 

[thunderc]

Fact is they had better records without Harden. It is because KD and Westbrook were still getting better but still yet that is a fact.

 

[anotheridiot]

These players are not really leaving anything on the table. The reason LeBron only signed a short term deal is because the cap is about to explode. The owners that fight expanding the cap will be pushed out one by one. None of these superstars are gonna lose a dime.

 

[frytening]

KD will sign a similar deal to Lebron and Westbrook and KD will leave for greener pastures at the same time. My 2c.

 

[Wishbone]

KD will sign a similar deal to Lebron and Westbrook and KD will leave for greener pastures at the same time. My 2c.

They can't.

 

[thunderc]

KD will sign a similar deal to Lebron and Westbrook and KD will leave for greener pastures at the same time. My 2c.

There are no greener pastures. OKC can pay more money than anyone else and arguably has more talent than anyone else.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Fact is they had better records without Harden. It is because KD and Westbrook were still getting better but still yet that is a fact.

Better records yes - but no trips to the finals and no championships. You don't need the best record in the NBA to win a title. In an 82 game season - it's a really long marathon where sometimes they get lucky and sometimes they don't. They easily over-achieved with the better records and then got to the playoffs without getting to the finals. The Lakers won their third championship with a # 3 seed. That happens all of the time. Remember - You're measured by titles - not Total games won in a season. 60 games won with no title is a failure

 

[logic]

Better records yes - but no trips to the finals and no championships. You don't need the best record in the NBA to win a title. In an 82 game season - it's a really long marathon where sometimes they get lucky and sometimes they don't. They easily over-achieved with the better records and then got to the playoffs without getting to the finals. The Lakers won their third championship with a # 3 seed. That happens all of the time. Remember - You're measured by titles - not Total games won in a season. 60 games won with no title is a failure

Having the best record is a big help. Saying lower seeds win all the time is a little bit of a stretch.
Championships by seed: #1-49, #2-10, #3-7, #4-1, #6-1. That is 72% of the time a #1 seed wins---having the best record certainly helps in the NBA.



Oh, and the Lakers had a few more than 2 rings when they won it as a #3 seed in 2002.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Having the best record is a big help. Saying lower seeds win all the time is a little bit of a stretch.
Championships by seed: #1-49, #2-10, #3-7, #4-1, #6-1. That is 72% of the time a #1 seed wins---having the best record certainly helps in the NBA.



Oh, and the Lakers had a few more than 2 rings when they won it as a #3 seed in 2002.

That's my point - Yes having a #1 seed is a huge help, but many teams over the years have over-achieved and ended up in first place. First place does not always translate to championship. And as you pointed out the Lakers is a classic example of winning without the #1 seed.

 

[logic]

That's my point - Yes having a #1 seed is a huge help, but many teams over the years have over-achieved and ended up in first place. First place does not always translate to championship. And as you pointed out the Lakers is a classic example of winning without the #1 seed.

No, you missed my point. The #1 seed is usually the champion----72%. Regular season record mean A LOT. The Lakers example of winning as a number 3 is meaningless since they have 13 as a number 1.
Sure, no seed will guarantee you a ring, but racking up the most wins during the regular season certainly gives you a big leg up in the NB A.

 

[trojanfight]

i see him bolting for washington. think we could also see the downfall of the thunder as as franchise. they have had luxury of being pretty decent team since arriving. don't think oklahoma city will support a losing team

 

[True Lakers Fan]

No, you missed my point. The #1 seed is usually the champion----72%. Regular season record mean A LOT. The Lakers example of winning as a number 3 is meaningless since they have 13 as a number 1.
Sure, no seed will guarantee you a ring, but racking up the most wins during the regular season certainly gives you a big leg up in the NB A.

I understand your point, but my point is that while the Thunder did get the most wins that year, they still failed to get the coveted prized. They failed - and failure to win means rebuilding the team or changing it to get to that last step. The Lakers did that by trading out Trevor Ariza for Ron Artest. Artest had the toughness to get past Boston and it worked. The #1 seed, though was not the Lakers main concern. In short - It's nice to have to #1 seed, but it doesn't mean anything without the title.

 

[HammerDown]

 

[occupant]

 

[LAD]

Durant would be crazy to leave $30M on the table. And yes, Dwightmare did exactly that to escape the Lakers. But OKC is a great team - with Durant. He has nothing to escape. And just because going to the Wizards would mean an automatic finals birth every year doesn't mean he'd ever win a ring. If he wants one of those, he'll stay in OKC where all the stars are 26 and under.

Because that's worked so well for them thus far......resulting in exactly ONE finals appearance.