Reports: Warriors serious threat to sign Kevin Durant!

[tlance]

Also, I am not sure you understand why the Warriors are good. You can never have too much shooting. It just stretches the defense and makes everything else easy. Durant would be replacing Barnes. He has a similar skill set to Barnes, but Durant is obviously much, much better.

 

[msgkings322]

Another thing to consider is that the Ws bench is mostly not under contract next year. They will have to make some changes to this amazing team they have going even if they have nothing to do with KD.

So maybe they have to gamble and say things are gonna change, let's go big, take it up a notch even.

 

[redseat]

I personally don't think that is likely - The Warriors do not need Durant

if anything I think it would F up the chemistry they currently have now

 

[trojanfan12]

if anything I think it would F up the chemistry they currently have now

I think that signing KD might indirectly F up the chemistry. By that I mean, he doesn't seem to be a guy who would come in and just expect to take over and be the #1 guy ala Dwight.

However, they would have to let a few of their bench players walk and replace them with veteran minimum, trying to chase a ring types, which could F up the chemistry.

 

[CitySushi]

Love Manimal.

But, he has the same limitations as DeAndre offensively.

High energy, hustle guy...zero post game outside of dunks.

Rumors now are that Denver and Clips are talking a Blake trade.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

Rumors now are that Denver and Clips are talking a Blake trade.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

Rumors now are that Denver and Clips are talking a Blake trade.

They called, Clippers said....um, no.

You had me scared for a minute.

 

[redseat]

I think that signing KD might indirectly F up the chemistry. By that I mean, he doesn't seem to be a guy who would come in and just expect to take over and be the #1 guy ala Dwight.

However, they would have to let a few of their bench players walk and replace them with veteran minimum, trying to chase a ring types, which could F up the chemistry.

They don't need Durant to win the NBA Title

 

[lakersrule]

They called, Clippers said....um, no.

You had me scared for a minute.

Gotta love the media. Denver calls Clippers about Blake. Clippers say no. Media reports that the Clippers are discussing trades for Blake. Well, not exactly.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

Gotta love the media. Denver calls Clippers about Blake. Clippers say no. Media reports that the Clippers are discussing trades for Blake. Well, not exactly.

Yep....But, you never know with the Clippers.

I still don't understand the Josh Smith trade.

It looks even worse now that Blake is gimp.....AGAIN.

 

[LAD]

People said that about Bosh and it proved to be true. I actually heard exactly the opposite about Kevin Love from an inside source. Love would sulk and whine when he didn't get his way in Minnesota, but since everything ran through him it wasn't obvious to outsiders.

Love has handled himself pretty well in Cleveland, all things considered, but he is not the reason Cleveland has had chemistry issues, and Bosh's unselfishness was why the Miami big 3 worked.

By the way, the Bulls were not a big 3 because Rodman wasn't a scorer. The Celtics and Heat big 3 worked just fine, thanks. It depends on the players as to whether the chemistry will work. Curry, Green, Durant and Thompson all have the right personalities to make it work. The jury is still out on Cleveland, but I don't think their pieces fit nearly as well as the other examples.

So a team can only be categoried as having a "big 3" if those particular players are scorers? I thought the big 3 reference was in regards to the statue of each of those players- such as a top performer in the league.

 

[LAD]

Also, I am not sure you understand why the Warriors are good. You can never have too much shooting. It just stretches the defense and makes everything else easy. Durant would be replacing Barnes. He has a similar skill set to Barnes, but Durant is obviously much, much better.

While it's true he's the better player in comparison to Barnes that isn't the only player the Warriors will have to give up in the deal.

 

[thunderc]

There are a few reasons, some basketball related, some not.

On the basketball side, he may feel that OKC has gone as far as they are going to. He's done everything in his power to get them a title, but in the end, it seems OKC won't spend the money to get or keep that 3rd guy that could put them over the top. Think KG when he left Minny for the Celtics.

On the non-basketball side, there is more money to be had in larger markets. While the difference isn't what it used to be with easier travel, 24/7 access, etc. there is still a decent sized gap between larger and smaller markets.

The Thunder have the 2nd highest payroll in the league.

 

[purguy12]

Durant would look nice with Rose and Butler. Outside shot but u never know. Bulls will have a lot of money off the books with Noah and Gasol contracts would be done.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

if anything I think it would F up the chemistry they currently have now

I agree, and you're not alone in that line of thinking - when your team has just won a championship, you look to make changes only if necessary and you don't mess with success until you have to. I like Kevin Durant, but I don't think he would be a good fit for the Lakers either. The Warriors are following the pattern the Warriors went and they just might have their core built if they get the third top draft pick this year. Kevin Durant is not exactly a young player and needs to go to a team that would be a contender instantly.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

So a team can only be categoried as having a "big 3" if those particular players are scorers?

Dennis Rodman and the Bulls disagree.

 

[tlance]

Dennis Rodman and the Bulls disagree.

I know people want to go back in time and call the 3 best players from past teams a "Big 3", but that is lazy.

First of all, the term was never really widespread until the Celtics formed their trio in 2007. Since the Heat one-upped the Celts with their Big 3 in 2010, there has a been a ton of talk about "Big 3s". Now every franchise seemingly has one, even if the players aren't all that good.

Fact is, Rodman, as great as he was, was a role player. He only made 2 all star appearances, with the final one coming in 1992. If the Bulls truly had a Big 3, then Rodman would have been an all star in '96 when they were in the process of setting the single season wins record. The Bulls did not have a big 3 though. They had a big 2 and a truly great collection of role players, led by Rodman.

For the record, the two most legitimate big 3s of the modern era both saw their entire trios get selected to the All Star team. All 3 Celts made it in 2008, and all 3 Heat made it in 2011.

The Bulls were not viewed as a "Big 3" back in '96, and I think it is crazy to view them that way now. Big 3 implies some level of balance between 3 stars. That is not at all what the Bulls had.

 

[bksballer89]

I know people want to go back in time and call the 3 best players from past teams a "Big 3", but that is lazy.

First of all, the term was never really widespread until the Celtics formed their trio in 2007. Since the Heat one-upped the Celts with their Big 3 in 2010, there has a been a ton of talk about "Big 3s". Now every franchise seemingly has one, even if the players aren't all that good.

Fact is, Rodman, as great as he was, was a role player. He only made 2 all star appearances, with the final one coming in 1992. If the Bulls truly had a Big 3, then Rodman would have been an all star in '96 when they were in the process of setting the single season wins record. The Bulls did not have a big 3 though. They had a big 2 and a truly great collection of role players, led by Rodman.

For the record, the two most legitimate big 3s of the modern era both saw their entire trios get selected to the All Star team. All 3 Celts made it in 2008, and all 3 Heat made it in 2011.

The Bulls were not viewed as a "Big 3" back in '96, and I think it is crazy to view them that way now. Big 3 implies some level of balance between 3 stars. That is not at all what the Bulls had.

Good to see you're getting around more and not just posting on fantasy boards

 

[tlance]

Good to see you're getting around more and not just posting on fantasy boards

Thanks BK!

I tend to venture over here during the summer and when the fantasy boards are dead.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

I know people want to go back in time and call the 3 best players from past teams a "Big 3", but that is lazy.

First of all, the term was never really widespread until the Celtics formed their trio in 2007. Since the Heat one-upped the Celts with their Big 3 in 2010, there has a been a ton of talk about "Big 3s". Now every franchise seemingly has one, even if the players aren't all that good.

Fact is, Rodman, as great as he was, was a role player. He only made 2 all star appearances, with the final one coming in 1992. If the Bulls truly had a Big 3, then Rodman would have been an all star in '96 when they were in the process of setting the single season wins record. The Bulls did not have a big 3 though. They had a big 2 and a truly great collection of role players, led by Rodman.

For the record, the two most legitimate big 3s of the modern era both saw their entire trios get selected to the All Star team. All 3 Celts made it in 2008, and all 3 Heat made it in 2011.

The Bulls were not viewed as a "Big 3" back in '96, and I think it is crazy to view them that way now. Big 3 implies some level of balance between 3 stars. That is not at all what the Bulls had.

Dennis was a specialty player. But, dominate in the one thing he did best.

I don't care what generation coined the phrase, nor where it derived from.

Magic/ Kaj/ Worthy....big 3.

Bird/ McHale/ Psrrish.....big 3

Thomas/Acguire/ Lambier or even Dumars....big 3

Jordan/Pippen/Rodman.....maybe Grant...maybe not.

All pre-Garnett going to the Celtics or James to the Heat.

I completely disagree that all 3 guys need equality because somebody always has to sacrifice some part of their game for the greater good.

Rodman was integral to that team winning even if he didn't score a point.

If guys going to the All star team is the barometer for judging big 3's then I guess Atlanta had one last year.