Rose, Durant, Carmelo - there's always going to be a number of spectacularly talented superstars who will be great almost regardless of the path. Requiring more college wouldn't help these guys (did requring 1yr hurt Durant, NO - help him?? MAYBE) although I think fans of Texas, Memphis and Syracuse wouldn't have minded seeing them one more year. But other key OKC players did develop while in college including; James Harden (2), Russell Westbrook (2) and even Ibaka who played 2 years in Spain (same as minor leagues if there were decent one in US aka college basketball). Lakers are losing to this squad cuz they have 2 of their top 3 in Kobe and Bynum with no college experience
Well, those are also the two most recent, so that makes some sense. And, whether true or not, he's criticized for giving up in the Boston series and standing in the corner too afraid to shoot in the 4th quarter of the Dallas series. While I think LeBron's received more unwarranted, over-the-top criticism than maybe any athlete ever (he's never committed a crime as far as I can recall), he set himself up for all of this with "The Decision" and the "Not 1, not 2, not 3..." campaign.
"The Decision" was assinine but the situations aren't comparable, Durant was going to be a RFA and not going to be able to go anywhere without the Thunder matching whoever offered him a contract if he ever got to that point.
The general logic was that a great center is harder to find than a great 3, so you have to take the big. There was a vocal minority (that I was a part of) that favored Durant as a potential once in a generation player. However, I don't think anyone thought that Oden would be as fragile as he is.
No they are 100% comparable. Yes Durant signed a year early, but he easily could have elected not to sign like LeBron did (granted his 3rd contract) and become a free agent and have a season of speculation. The biggest difference is of course that OKC was patient and built a young club around its young star as opposed to the Cavs who kept trying to a quick-fix to surround LeBron with good players and ended up with mediocre complimentary pieces. Kind of like the Heat now except they have 2-3 stars. That's the other problem with LeBron, it was selfish (taxes) to pick Miami and not the best basketball team (Chicago) IF the sole reason he wanted to leave Cleveland really was to win.
As usual, you are completely clueless. "Not to sign like Lebron did"...what does that even mean? This was Durant's 2nd contract, he either signs a max contract for 6 years or goes for the 3 year deal that gives him the option for free agency sooner like Bron, Wade, & Bosh did. Durant was going to be a RESTRICTED Free Agent, not Bron who was a UNRESTRICTED Free Agent because this was his 3rd contract. The only other option would be to take a 1 year contract tender, play that out, and then become and unrestricted free agent and that would really make no sense for a player in Durant's position. The only other high profile player to use that option of accepting a 1 year tender has been BG and that worked out for him money wise. Also OKC wasn't really patient, they just sucked that badly in Durant's first few years that they were able to land high lottery picks like Westbrook & Harden(Ibaka was a great pick tho), compared to Bron, whose teams either finished at the back end of the lottery or made the playoffs in his early years.
This is such hindsight bulls**t. When LeBron, Wade, and Bosh first joined forces, everyone thought they'd be an unstoppable force - while the Bulls would have been the favorites in the East, no one would have thought the same about them (remember, this was pre-MVP Derrick Rose). And if LeBron was only thinking about the money like you imply, he would've have re-upped with Cleveland where he could've signed for A LOT more than Chicago, Miami, New York, etc. Do I think winning was the only thing that factored into LeBron's decision? No. But you don't take less money, sacrifice your numbers, and team up with two All-Stars if winning championships isn't very important to you.
I gave 2 possible reasons in ADDITION to winning that LeBron signed with Miami. My guess is others were lifestyle, playing with friends. Winning was on the list, but it simply was not the only consideration as he said - not me. And of course HE thought they'd win multiple titles as he is on record for saying that was the most important reason and predicting not 6 etc... As far as 'everyone thought they were an unstoppable force' that's hyperbole, but Miami was favored to win both last year and this year. They still might be the best bet because San Antonio & OKC are 50-50 to get past each other whereas even with the Bosh injury Heat are still the favorites to come out of the east. But so what, any team with LeBron on it is immediately the title favorite witness the Cavs who went from perennial eastern contenders (61-21 LeBron's last yr) to 19-63 post-LeBron cuz there was nothing else on that roster. Add LeBron to the Knicks and they would have been immediatley in the mix. But the Bulls? Sure Rose didn't have his MVP yet, but he put up 16.8PPG and 6.3 apg, 3.9 boards his ROOKIE OF THE YEAR season, then 20.8, 6 assists and 3.7 boards the year you think no one knew he was good. Who could have projected he'd score 25ppg with 7 assists and 4.1 boards the next year - I'd say anyone paying attention but you might contend only Nostradamus and certainly not an opponent that sees him more than ten times a year. After all DRose only averaged 27pts and 7 assists in the Bulls playoff series vs the Cavs in 2010. Point is add LeBron to the Bulls and they were immediate favorites for a very long time with LeBron choosing a complimentary player and younger player to run with. I specifically remember BSimmons writing about fearing him picking Chicago cuz they'd be an immediate dynasty threat. Here's a link (check out #3 midway down: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100514&sportCat=nba Only problem 'haters' would have had with Chicago is it would have been too much good fortune for Chicago (b/c they also had MJ) and many likely would have accused LeBron of copying MJ. LeBron kind of was in a no-win situation. Acebon I haven't a clue why you are bent out of shape I said the same thing you did that Durant was a year away from being a free agent, congratulations for spelling out exactly how he could have got there. It is relevant because Durant, unlike LeBron didn't take either the long (3yr) or quick route to full free agency AND he chose to resign long-term with little fanfare. By 'not to sign like LeBron did' I meant play your final year with unknown future and 'test the waters' or whatever the euphemsim is for becoming a free agent and bolting (see Cavs meltdown and LeBron quitting vs Celtics - first reason people started questioning him). To say the contract signings of 2 of the top 5 basketball players in the NBA are not comparable strikes me as a bit ridiculous. No? PS - I think LeBron is WAyyyy better than Durant right now, though I'm not certain who is more likely to win multiple titles. But it'd be nuts to say LeBron is not the better player, Durant hasn't had his game dissected the way LeBron has and has been relatively under the radar. For that reason among others I think OKC likely has to try and fail versus the Spurs to ascend to the title.
Dude, they're not comparable at all because Durant wasn't going anywhere, because he couldn't. The way the CBA is set up a team pretty much controls your rights for at least the first 7 years. Durant re-upped to a deal that he pretty much had to take(or take the 3 year extension), his situation was nothing like Lebron's because Lebron had already been through that stage in his career. As an aside, people make way too much of a big deal about Durant signing long term in OKC. I know that wasn't your point but I've seen it on here and in the national media. I'm sure if LeBron had a top 5 PG(Westbrook), top 5 SG(Harden), and the best shotblocker in the game while he was in Cleveland he would've likely committed there long term as well.
I too mentioned how OKC built around Durant, whether they got lucky or were smart is debatable. But inarguably Durant committing long term immediately (unlike LeBron) enabled OKC to continue to think long-haul and not do what LeBron arguably forced or demanded (behind the scenes rumor that he was a prima donna demanding special treatment & help) the Cavs to do and prove to him they're committed to winning immediately. Durant's long-term extension with little fanfare occured in the summer of 2010, so that's why most of the obvious comparisons to LeBron's latter stage decisions are made. Acebon you correctly point out that the two signing occured at different stages in their careers (3rd vs 2nd contract) but now Durant cannot go the LeBron route so I think we can conclude he has in fact made a very different decision. They clearly chose different paths and Durant's path is looking better as the future blueprint to building a franchise championship team (I smell a wager who gets more nba titles?). Hence DRose in a similar career arc to LeBron and Durant chose the Durant way and not the LeBron/Dwight Howard/Carmelo way. I can't believe we are even debating this since 99% of the basketball universe now roots against the Heat. The masses may do this for imperfect reasons (not fully understanding contract rules), but the basic premise is that Durant has stayed with his team and is admired and LeBron pissed people off by leaving his team and possibly colluding to build a mercenary style team. Meanwhile they all are likely to get trumped by Tim Duncan* the modern NBA gold standard of franchise loyalty = winning. Four years of college by the way
